Oakland Athletics v Texas Rangers

No runs, no hits, no action

61 Comments

Baseball is often called a slow-moving game … but it does change fast. It barely seems like yesterday when people seemed convinced that all the long home runs and the shrinking strike zone and steroid-infused barrage of scoring was on the verge of ruining baseball. And now, nobody’s scoring runs and everybody’s striking out. The epidemics change. But there always seems to be an epidemic in baseball.

Friday night there were six shutouts in baseball. Six. In 1996, that was like a month’s worth. There have been 96 shutouts in baseball already this year and we’re barely a quarter way into the season. At this pace, there would be close to 400 shutouts in total. That would be a Major League record.

Most shutouts in a season:

2014: 376 (pace)

1915: 359

1972: 357

1914: 357

1968: 339

Now, obviously, there are many more teams now than there were in 1915 or 1972, so it’s not a fair comparison — it’s like comparing a running back’s 1,500 yard season in a 16-game schedule to, say, Jim Brown’s 1958 season, when he rushed for 1,527 yards in only 12 games. Still, shutouts are up even from last year, and last year teams threw 331 shutouts, the most in the four decades.

Cincinnati’s Johnny Cueto has gone 10 consecutive starts now — going back to last season — where he has pitched at least seven innings and given up five hits or less, two runs or less. That’s the longest such streak in the last 100 years. Texas’ Martin Perez has already had a 29-inning scoreless streak; St. Lous’ Adam Wainwright had a 24-inning one. It’s early but there are 11 starters — ELEVEN– averaging 10-plus strikeouts per nine innings. Last year there were two. There have never been more than five.

On the other side, the Kansas City Royals are on pace to hit 65 homers this year … that would be the fewest for any team in almost 30 years (going back to the 1986 Cardinals). Perhaps even more shocking, the Texas Rangers — who have hit more home runs since 2000 than any team except the Yankees — are barely on pace to hit 100 homers this year. You have undoubtedly heard all of the strikeout talk — hitters are striking out more than ever before and, consequentially, hitting for a lower batting average than any season in 40 years.

Of course, it’s easy to get irrationally swayed by the first 40 games of a season. The hot weather has not yet arrived, and hot weather tends to bring offense. Also, let’s be honest, pitchers seem to be breaking down at an alarming rate; by the end of the year I might be pitching for the Braves. Offense would pick up then.

This week, I had someone in baseball offer an elegant theory about what’s happening in baseball. His theory goes something like this:

1. Pitchers are overthrowing like crazy because 100 mph fastballs are the way to the big leagues and stardom.

2. Hitters are striking out like crazy because they’re facing more 100 mph pitches than ever.

3. Pitchers are breaking down because arms — except the most freakish of arms — cannot sustain the tension of throwing 100 mph.*

This seems too simple to me, too pat, and it goes off premises that might not even be true (are pitchers breaking down more than ever or are we just recognizing and treating pitching injuries in a different way)? But it’s pretty clear that something is happening in baseball. And, to be honest, it is something that I don’t think is good for the game.

Well, wait: I’m not  bothered by the lack of scoring. Baseball goes in cycles — as mentioned, it was only a few years ago that people griped that there was too much scoring in baseball. Offense will come back around again, and pitching will come around after that, and offense will come around after that. The seasons turn.

I’m also not too bothered by the rash of strikeouts. Again: I think the game will adjust and self-correct. Strikeouts kept going up and up as hitters started swinging more and more for doubles and home runs — the strikeout spike strike began in 1994, exactly when offense took off.

Take a look:

1970: 5.75 Ks per game

1974: 5.01 Ks per game

1978: 4.77 Ks per game

1982: 5.04 Ks per game

1986: 5.87 Ks per game

1990: 5.67 Ks per game

1994: 6.18 Ks per game

1998: 6.56 Ks per game

2002: 6.47 Ks per game

2006: 6.52 Ks per game

2010: 7.06 Ks per game

2014: 7.85 Ks per game

See that? For 30 years or so, from 1963 to 1993, the strikeout rate stayed about the same — always less than six per game. But with the explosion in offense came a new way of hitting. Batters realized that a strike out wasn’t usually a more costly out than anything else, sometimes it was even a LESS costly out. Batters struck out 150 times a season and 200 times a season and it just didn’t matter because if you hit a lot of home runs and walked a lot you are still a very valuable hitter. Jim Thome and Ryan Howard and Adam Dunn and Sammy Sosa and Manny Ramirez and even Alex Rodriguez became the standard-bearers of a whole different philosophy of hitting.

As long as that was an effective way to score runs, batters would keep swinging for fences rather than contact. But we’re seeing more and more that it isn’t working. Home runs are down, walks are down, and without those two outcomes you are left with a lot of strikeouts and not a lot of offense. I think baseball will adjust and making contact will make a comeback in the game.

But there is something about the way baseball is being played now that is bothersome. It’s kind of hard to put into words but, generally speaking, I think baseball has lost its rhythm. Runs are way down … but games are taking longer to play than ever before. The point here is not to be the latest to yammer about how long baseball games take to play — a brisk, beautifully played three hour game is one of life’s great pleasures — but instead to yammer about how baseball seems have lost its cadence. The game is supposed to be leisurely, but these days it’s positively stagnant.

There are numbers that show this; according to Fangraphs “Pace” — which generally measures the number of seconds it takes for a pitcher to make a pitch — it took pitches 21.8 seconds per pitch in 2007. That is way, way too long. But this year the pace is a full second higher. Relievers tend to take longer than starters. High-level situations tend to take longer than low leverage situation. Hitters take forever between pitches — Troy Tulowitzki seems to be singlehandedly trying to make the game unwatchable: Pitchers facing Tulowitzki are averaging 27.6 seconds per pitch, a full five seconds above average. The game is  grinding to a halt.

But you don’t need numbers to see this. You can see if in every single game. Baseball — with batters constantly stepping out of the box, with pitchers taking sabaticals between pitches, with managers and pitching coaches calling every bleeping pitch and five relievers every game preparing for each pitch like it’s their Bar Mitzvah … is just a lot less fun to watch. When offense was dominating the game, the slow pace a little bit easer to take. Lots of runs were being scored. Every batter was dangerous. There was tension filling the empty spaces. Now, though, with pitching on top, the empty spaces are just that … empty spaces. Nothing used to make me happier than sitting in front of the television at night and just switching from game to game or, even better, settling in for a random Brewers-Padres or A’s-Blue Jays game.

Now? I find myself switching to the Golf Channel to get action. It’s come to that.

There’s always an interesting tug-of-war going on in professional sports. On the one hand, you have the interest of the team. They need to win. They need to win to keep fan interest high. They need to win to satisfy their bosses. They need to win for job security, for monetary reasons, for sense of themselves. And so, in general, they play the game to win and not for any other reason.

And then you have the interst of the fans. They need an interesting game. They need a game that feels fair and feels exciting and provides enough enjoyment and fun to make all the money and time and trouble spent seem worthwhile.

Those two interests often clash. Not always. Fans can enjoy watching their own team win ugly. But often the teams efforts to win creates a much less enjoyable game. In hockey a few years ago, teams — particularly the New Jersey Devils — began to use the neutral zone trap to limit scoring. It was very effective. It also made hockey almost unwatchable. From what I understand the NHL made some subtle changes (they called penalties like interference more often) and not-subtle changes (they lifted the ban on the two-line pass) to make the game more fun for the fans. And it is more fun now.

Pat Riley began a similar trend in the NBA when he got his New York Knicks to play a bruising, ponderous style. It sort of worked — the Knicks won 50-plus games ever year under Riley — but it was impossibly boring basketball for everyone but Knicks fans. And scoring went way down and down and down in the NBA. Again the league stepped in with a few small rules changes and by calling the game bit more tightly which took away some of the advantages of that grueling style.

I’m not saying baseball needs to change rules to make the games move at a better pace. In fact, I know they don’t. There’s one on the books already that would do the job. In fact, there are two.

Major League Baseball Rule 8.04

When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call Ball. The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.

The intent of the rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shal insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and the pitcher take his position on the rummber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire. Get that? TWELVE seconds.

And, the other rule:

Major League Baseball Rule 6:02

The batter shall take his position in the batters box promptly when it is his time at bat. (b) The batter shall not leave his position in the batters box after the pitcher comes to the Set Position or srarts his windup.

(1) The batters shall keep at least one foot in the batters box throughout the batters time at bat, unless of the following exceptions applies:

(i) The batter swings at a pitch;

(ii) The batter is forced out of the batters box by a pitch;

(iii) A member of either team requests and is granted Time;

(iv) A defensive player attempts a play on a runner at any base;

(v) The batter feints a bunt

(vi) A wild pitch or passed ball occurs

(vii) The pitchers leaves the dirt area of the pitching mound after receiving the ball; or

(viii) The catcher leaves the catcher’s box to give defensive signals.

If the batter intentionally leaves the batters box and delays play, and none of the exceptions listed in Rule 6.02 applies the umpire shall award a strike without the pitcher having to deliver a pitch. The umpire shall award additional strikes without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch if the batter remains outside the batters box and further delays play.

That 6:02 rule is long and dreary — I only included part of it — but the point is clear. Batters are supposed to stay in the box. Pitchers are supposed to pitch quickly. That is in the rulebook because baseball people could see, long ago, that players will have a natural tendency to slow down the game. The pitcher wants the hitter to wait. The hitter wants the pitcher to wait. The pitcher wants to deeply consider what the next pitch should be. The hitter wants to get himself into a zen state of mind. If they could play baseball by post, they would.

But it’s a spectator sport, and so they put in these rules to make sure that the players did not ruin the rhythm of baseball. And then, they ignored the rules and let the players ruin the rhythm of baseball.

By rules already on the books, each pitch should probably be delivered 10 seconds faster. Games, by rule, should be taking 45 or 50 less minutes without losing one bit of action. I have a weird theory that probably doesn’t make any sense to anyone else that some of the arm problems of pitchers relates to the painfully slow pace of play. Pitchers load up for every pitch like it is 2-and-2 to Harvey Kuenn with a perfect game on the line. I think throwing 100 pitches today, with all that delay time between and with each pitch analyzed and scrutinized and disected, is a whole lot different from 1975, when pitchers would just bleeping get the ball and pitch it.

Then again, that theory might just be me wanting to believe that if they sped up the baseball so that flowed again every single problem would disappear — in and out of baseball. I know that’s not true. But I do believe that a brisker game would be so much more fun to watch. The lack of runs doesn’t bother me. I’ll take a 2-1 baseball game any day — but not if it’s a three and a half hour 2-1 baseball game where I spend most of the evening watching major league baseball players do absolutely nothing.

Freddy Garcia is calling it a career

Screenshot 2016-02-07 at 10.16.43 AM
Elsa/Getty Images North America
Leave a comment

MLB.com’s Jesse Sanchez passes along word from the Dominican Republic that right-hander Freddy Garcia will hang up his cleats for good after Sunday’s Caribbean Series championship game.

Garcia will start that game for the Tigres de Aragua out of Venezuela. He’s taking on Mexico’s Venados de Mazatlan.

“Venezuelan fans are expecting something good from Freddy and so is everybody,” said Tigres de Aragua manager Eddie Perez, who also serves as the bullpen coach for the Atlanta Braves. “Knowing that it’s his last game is going to make it very special. We all hope he pitches a really good game so he can retire in a good way and bring the title for Venezuela. Everybody who is rooting for Venezuela expects him to do well.”

Garcia’s last major league game was in the 2013 postseason. The 39-year-0ld will finish with a 4.15 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, and 6.4 K/9 in 2,264 career regular-season innings. He had a 3.26 ERA in 11 playoff starts, winning a World Series title with the White Sox in 2005.

Video: 2016 will be a season to remember

Carlos+Correa+Houston+Astros+v+Arizona+Diamondbacks+Ctyu5RiU3SWl
Christian Petersen/Getty Images North America
1 Comment

MLB.com put together this very cool video montage reviewing the 2015 season and setting us up for what should be a wild 2016. Young stars, veterans chasing milestones, unpredictable divisional races.

It’s so close to spring training. Let’s do this.

Reds hire Lou Pinella as a senior advisor to baseball operations

pinella
1 Comment

The Reds announced on Twitter that the club has hired former manager Lou Pinella in a consultant capacity as a senior advisor to baseball operations. John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer adds that Pinella will also spend time with the team at spring training.

Pinella, 72, was last seen with the Giants in 2011, also in a consultant capacity, but he spent only the one season there. He has 23 seasons of experience as a manager, with his most recent four coming with the Cubs between 2007-10.

Stick to Sports? NEVER! The Intersectionalist Manifesto

Fans wait for autographs from Atlanta Braves players during a spring training baseball workout Friday, Feb. 15, 2013, in Kissimmee, Fla. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
34 Comments

At Baseball Prospectus on Friday, Rian Watt wrote something which opened my eyes. The article was entitled “What Comes After Sabermetrics.” It was not really about sabermetrics as such. It was about what we do here at HardballTalk and have done for a few years now. And what some others writers I admire have been doing as well. I had no idea until reading Watt’s article, however, that that’s what we were all doing, but we are and I think it’s worth talking explicitly about what that is and why it’s important.

But let me start at the beginning.

Watt starts off talking about what a lot of people have said in the past few years: sabermetrics has gotten stale. Or, since so many great analysts have been hired by teams and since most of the bleeding-edge stuff has moved in-house with clubs, maybe it’s just that sabermetric writing has gotten stale. There’s a sense that all of the big discoveries and insights have been made and that most of what happens in that realm now is niggling around the edges in ways that don’t lend themselves to big, broad engaging writing like Bill James used to do. Or, maybe, to written eviscerations of non-believers like Fire Joe Morgan or Joe Sheehan specialized in back in the day. Which, no matter what you thought of them on the substance, were entertaining reads.

I can’t really opine on the “all the big insights have been made” part. I’m no stathead. I also know well enough about how science and analysis works that to say that there won’t be something groundbreaking tomorrow or next year with any sort of certainty is a fool’s game. Someone with a database may very well revolutionize statistical analysis of baseball tomorrow. No one saw DIPS coming, for example. Voros McCracken is sneaky like that. There might be a major breakthrough on defensive metrics. There probably will be. But it is safe to say, I think, that sabermetrics is now a mature area of study and mature areas of study are in a lot of ways less exciting to lay people. When that big breakthrough on defense happens it will be great, but when people are merely refining established areas of any science, it’s mostly of interest only to the scientists.

So Watt asks: what’s next? What’s the next area of baseball writing that might be vital and might give us new insights or different things to talk about that haven’t been talked about at length — or with serious depth — before? The answer:

I think that a second major paradigm shift is already well underway. It’s being missed, however, and taken for something other than it is, because it’s not about sabermetrics, and it’s not about statistics at all. (How could it be, if those things form the bedrock of the existing paradigm?) It is, instead, about sports within the context of the broader society, and about the renewed humanity of the game.

The best baseball writing I’ve read this year has been about more than baseball. It’s been about politics, and race, and gender, and sexuality, and money, and power, and how they all come together in this game we love. It’s placed the game in its social context, and used it as a lens to talk about ideas that are bigger than the nuts and bolts of a box score or a daily recap. It’s engaged with difficult questions about how to be a fan when players you love are disappointingly flawed and human, and how to be a human being living in an often unjust world.

Watt calls those who do this sort of writing “Intersectionalists.” People who write and talk about the places where the sport and the lives of its participants, its fans and society at large intersect. About the business of baseball, labor relations, the culture of fandom and allegiance, the enjoyment of sports as entertainment and the prioritization of sports in people’s lives. Off-the-field things too.

This is exactly the sort of thing I have found the most interesting and about which I have written most passionately in the past several years. I had no inkling that it was part of any kind of paradigm shift — I have always simply written about what interests me — but having thought about it for the past 24 hours or so, and having thought about all of the baseball writing that I read and the writers I most admire, I think it’s safe to say that it is.

Since Friday, there has been a lot of discussion, some of it angry discussion, about Watt’s article. He has taken to social media to try to clarify what he meant and make clear what he was not saying. I and others have likewise had conversations about it and, not surprisingly, some of them have turned into arguments. That’s sort of inevitable with Big Insights like Watt’s, I suppose.

It’s the sort of thing that calls for some sort of declaration of principles. A manifesto or three. Some carrying on of the conversation beyond its introduction. So let’s do that, shall we? I think Q&A format is the best way to handle it.

Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations Joe Torre, center, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2014, before the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on domestic violence in professional sports. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who chairs the panel, says he called for Tuesday's hearing because "until very recently, the leagues' records have not been very good" on the issue. Torre is flanked by Deputy Managing Director for the?National Football League Players' Association Teri Patterson, left, and Counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association Virginia Seitz. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Q: So, is this some sort of repudiation of sabermetrics? Do the statheads and the intersectionalists have to fight now?

A: NO! As Watt notes, intersectionalist writing is not a rejection of sabermetrics, it’s an evolution that builds on what came before. Sabermetrics was a total game-changer that made people fundamentally reevaluate how we look at baseball. To reject old orthodoxy and take a fresh look at what was really going on in the game. Without that splash of cold water snapping us out of a century of baseball cliche and often-faulty conventional wisdom, intersectionalists would never even be able to ask the questions or to discuss the topics we discuss. Instead of taking a fresh look at, say, hitting, intersectionalism takes a fresh look at the athlete as role model. Or the allegedly hard and fast pillars of the culture of the game. Bill James asked “why are RBI so important?” An intersectionalist might ask “why should I care if the batter flipped his bat?” or “why should fans root for a guy just because he plays for their favorite team?” or “should the fact that a player committed a crime change the way we or his team look at him?”

Maybe the best way to think about it is through a somewhat old term: “The Liberal Arts Wing” of sabermetrics.” Former Baseball Prospectus editors Steve Goldman and Christina Kahrl coined that term to talk about the writers at BP as opposed to the number crunchers. I think it has wider applicability to describe people, like me, whose baseball fandom was energized or reenergized by sabermetrics and whose brains are wired that way but who aim our brains at other questions instead of analytics. I’ve often used the phrase “fellow traveller” of sabermetrics. Liberal arts works too.

 

Q: STICK TO SPORTS!

A: NO! That’s exactly what we will not do. And what we have never done here at HBT. The entire point of it is to understand and appreciate that sports are part of the real world, impact the real world and that the real world impacts sports as well. Why not talk about how they do so and what it means, both for sports and the real world? If you really want to be that dude who keeps their sports fandom hermetically sealed and, within their world of sports fandom, sports are everything, go ahead and be that dude. Just know that you’re boring. You’re David Puddy from “Seinfeld,” unironically painting your face at the game and making your friends uncomfortable. You’re the guy who calls in to talk radio and angrily rants about how some player is “stealing money” because he didn’t hit as well as you had hoped. You’re that guy Fox catches on the camera crying at the ballpark when your boys lose. Don’t be that guy. Even if you follow sports for escapism, understand that sports don’t take place in a vacuum. Understand that it is just a ballgame, that you can LOVE the ballgame with every ounce of your being and that we do too, but that the ballgame is not your entire life nor should it really be and that the players are themselves human beings with human failings. Understand that, once you make that realization, it’s interesting to talk about what sports means for life and what life means for sports.

 

Q: But I don’t want politics in my sports writing!

A: First of all, it’s not just politics. It’s sports culture.  It’s players’ lives off the field. It’s uniform upgrades and new ballparks. It’s TV deals and the business of the game. It’s drugs and addiction and punishment. It’s a team’s role in the community and a player’s status as a role model. It’s Billy Bean’s outreach for diversity in the game, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption, Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities initiatives and the treatment of women as fans by teams in promotions and marketing. Politics comes up sometimes too, but intersectionalism relates to any conceivable aspect of the game, as it in turn relates to the real world in which its participants and its fans actually live.

But you also have to face facts: politics impact sports and sports impact politics. I write about that stuff sometimes. But with all of these issues, it’s still baseball that is the starting point. Baseball and what’s going on with the game that may invoke some political or cultural discussion is the driver, not the shoehorning of politics and culture into a baseball context or using baseball as a pretext for our political hobby horses. But the fact remains: baseball has a labor union and labor politics are relevant. Major League Baseball has a lobbying apparatus with direct contact with Capitol Hill. Major League Baseball is, by its own admission, concerned and interested with expanding outreach to minorities and women. Sometimes, quite often actually, legal and political stuff touches on the game too. The people who run the game contend with that on a daily basis and it directly impacts the product with which you the fan are presented. It’d be foolish for us not to talk about that.

 

Q: Great. So the future of sports writing is political rants, political correctness and Social Justice Warriors telling me that I can’t enjoy anything?

A: Of course not. I’m a liberal dude so you usually know what to expect from me, but there is nothing stopping someone from writing about, say, the value of conservatism in baseball. Indeed, baseball is one of the most conservative institutions there is in many ways and, to the extent it has changed or evolved over the years culturally, that change has been led by commissioners, owners and players, the VAST majority of whom are conservative people. Oh, and they’ve made these changes,  in almost all cases, without intervention of the government. For example, there’s a great case to be made that, for all of Bud Selig’s detractors, he perfectly balanced tradition with “progress” however one wishes to define it and presided over the game as it slowly and deliberately evolved pursuant to a consensus which was built up in the community. That’s kind of the textbook definition of small-c conservatism. There’s also a good argument that, if he had done what more progressive types had demanded of him and made changes just to make changes, it would’ve been a bad thing. Anyone writing about that? Oh wait, this pinko liberal did, but others can too.

Yes, I will grant that many of the most prominent voices in intersectionalist baseball writing are liberal. But they don’t have to be. Social and political issues within the sport, as long as they present themselves organically and aren’t shoehorned in, are open for discussion by everyone. At the moment, yes, there is a good bit of writing out there which comes off as “Freshman social science student has SOMETHING TO SAY!” That discourse is improved and liberal doofuses like me will become less complacent if met with reasoned and respectful pushback from people who don’t share our assumptions. That’s how ALL good discourse works. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a great need for dissenting voices to weigh in NOW lest a certain sort of homogeneousness of opinion sets in and calcifies as the only acceptable form of discourse. In short: if I’m wrong, tell me why! Or, better yet, write a response of your own to it and explain why I’m full of crap. I really am full of crap sometimes.

 

Q: So it’s just now gonna be hot takes and opinion writing? Is actual baseball reporting going to continue to be denigrated the way it has been by some sabermetric types?

A: Not at all. Indeed, there is probably a greater need for good reporting than ever before. Reporting, like opinion, is undergoing its own evolution, after all. Off-the-field stories about players used to be used to explain baseball stuff (i.e. he’s a good guy, so he’s a good player). Such reporting was marginalized or denigrated by some after the rise of sabermetrics, thought of as irrelevant or as mere source-greasing (“The analytics can explain baseball. Why are we talking to Shlabotnik? He doesn’t know what makes him good!”). And to some extent there is some legitimate criticism to be made along those lines. There has also been a well-deserved backlash to it.

If anything, intersectionalism needs more reporting. Maybe fewer game stories and scoops — we’ve gone on at length about the diminished value of such things — but more off-the-field stuff about the athletes as people as opposed to gladiators. Maybe more about the business of the game and things like that. There’s a lot of that in existence already, of course. For starters, good traditional baseball reporters — and off the top of my head I’ll cite Tyler Kepner, Derrick Goold, Andy McCullough, Nick Piecoro, Bill Shaikin, Geoff Baker and many, many others — have always made a point to write stories that go beyond just the Xs and Os. They’re not just checking in with baseball bits, dashed off. Good baseball writing like theirs places baseball in context, describes players as human beings and makes the readers care about the game as it fits in their lives. It’s probably also worth noting that The Players Tribune is doing a lot of this too, delivering to us fresh looks at athletes as human beings. It’s probably the case — and you’ll be shocked to hear me say it — that Murray Chass was doing exactly the sort of reporting I’m talking about here with respect to the business of baseball before most of you were born. Yes, dammit, Murray Chass was an intersectionalist. A lot of old school baseball writers were, even if they were often considered oddballs for being so.

So yes, there have always been people doing this work and doing it well. But we could certainly do with more of it. And, perhaps, from some different sorts of reporters and commentators than those who have done it in the past. More reporters and commentators who question the assumptions of fans, owners, players and league officials rather than defer to them as much as they tend to. More reporters and commentators whose background isn’t necessarily just sports, whose work doesn’t just appear on the sports page and who aren’t necessarily beholden, implicitly or otherwise, to Major League Baseball and the clubs via their access or merely their familiarity and subconscious biases.

Also — and perhaps most importantly — reporters who aren’t so heavily members of the same demographic. There’s no escaping it: there are a lot of white men between the ages of 40 and 60 covering baseball. People with different backgrounds have different perspectives and the entire purpose of intersectionalism in baseball writing is to give us new perspectives. A lot of the sabermetric people were from business and math backgrounds, after all. It took that new look to bring us fresh content. We should strive for greater diversity in baseball writing, not for its own sake, but for the sake of new, interesting work that asks questions which haven’t been asked before and which challenge the assumptions people who look like me or people who see the game only from a press box don’t even realize that they harbor. And, of course, us old white guys can stick around too as long as we appreciate that we do not have anything close to a monopoly on the cultural experience and realize that there is a lot which we try to talk about that, really, we know jack crap about and probably should leave to others who know better.

Children reach to high-five Seattle Mariners' Felix Hernandez after the pitcher participated an instructional clinic that included a game of wiffle ball at the Rainier Vista Boys & Girls Club, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015, in Seattle. Earlier at the club, Hernandez presented $100,000 in total grants to five Seattle area nonprofits as part of the Major League Baseball Players Association/Major League Baseball Joint Youth Initiative Players Going Home program. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

While I didn’t know it had a name before the other day, baseball intersectionalism is very much the sort of thing which has interested me and animated my writing for many years now. Indeed, I find that the topics which truly inspire me are exactly the things Rian Watt spoke about on Friday and constitute the subject matter of the baseball writing I most admire. Likewise, the negative reaction Watt refers too — the “stick to sports” refrains — are exactly the sort of response I have received from detractors when I write about these topics, a response I’ve never truly understood and which constitutes a request I will not honor. Ever.

We need more of this sort of writing. We need more people asking the questions about sports that only a few of us have been asking and we need different sorts of people from different backgrounds and with different worldviews asking them.

More baseball fans and readers of baseball writing should ask why things are the way they are and whether or not the way things are are the way they should be.

We should be asking what we expect from baseball players and why we expect it in the first place.

We should be asking what role sports should play in our lives and in society as a whole.

We should look at sports through the lens of our real world experiences and real world realities and see if, through the lens of sports, we can’t make some insights about the real world in return.

I love baseball. My life always has been and always will be better for its presence. We must realize, however, that it’s a strong, strong institution that isn’t going anywhere. Our questioning it and its foundations and assumptions will not damage it too greatly. We should not be afraid to challenge it and its leaders and its participants and its fans to examine what, exactly, we talk about when we talk about baseball and what it is we enjoy about it and why. And perhaps, if enough people ask enough questions about the world baseball inhabits, it can even be improved a bit. Even if it’s just around the edges.