By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Because baseball missed out on its annual opportunity to pat itself on the back on April 15th it shrewdly pivoted and made today, August 28th, “Jackie Robinson Day.”  Rather than celebrate the day Robinson walked out to first base at Ebbets Field in 1947, putting to an end the ban on African Americans in Organized Baseball that baseball itself enforced for a half century, MLB has decided that the day in 1945 that Brooklyn Dodger President Branch Rickey signed Robinson, then with the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues, to an agreement to join the Dodger organization, was the next best option.

Well enough.  But what, exactly, is MLB celebrating here?  Of course, Jackie Robinson must be remembered and nobody associated with American sports should be ignorant of all he had to overcome just to take a big league field, but why the “celebration”?  And why is the collective that banded together for a half-century to bar an entire race an opportunity afforded to White American ballplayers seemingly as a matter of course celebrating their forbears’ decision to stop doing what they could have stopped doing for years if only they cared enough to stop doing it?

The recent announcement that MLB is considering reclassifying the various “Negro Leagues” as Major Leagues only amplifies the absurdity of baseball celebrating itself for putting a putative end to its very own marginalization of Black baseball.  Of course the Negro Leagues were Major Leagues, as they were bursting with players who no doubt would have excelled in the National and American leagues of the first half of the Twentieth Century if only they were permitted the opportunity.  No more proof of that is needed than this: by the end of the first decade of integrated big league ball (1956), a Black player had won six Most Valuable Player awards, seven Rookie of the Year awards, and the first Cy Young Award (Don Newcombe in 1956).  On an organizational level, the two clubs that rushed to integrate first and pepper their rosters with Negro League players (the Dodgers and the Cleveland Indians), quickly became dominant in their respective leagues. 

There will be obstacles in the effort to integrate the Negro League records into Organized Baseball’s, with some of them insurmountable.  There were multiple “Negro Leagues” and record-keeping wasn’t what it was in the National and American leagues.  Top-tier Negro League clubs would play other top-tier clubs but also lower level and ragtag outfits as they barnstormed across the country looking for any and all ways to fill their coffers sufficiently to keep the lights on in the ballparks and gas in the buses.  How to deal with incomplete records and statistics along with the sometimes disorganized nature of Black baseball?  Nobody knows.  But this is a problem Organized Baseball created and because of it, we’ll never really know how truly great so many Black ballplayers of the first half of the Twentieth Century were.  Celebrating yourself for ceasing to inflict a harm you never should have inflicted at all strikes a discordant note in the symphony MLB likes to play for itself.

Moreover, the arrival of Robinson and a select few of his contemporaries hardly ended Organized Baseball’s racially-motivated standards and practices.  The next decade-plus saw an influx of Black stars but beyond them, roster spots were reserved primarily for White players.  MLB could use Jackie Robinson Day to shine a spotlight on that somber reality but because that narrative doesn’t bathe Organized Baseball in sunshine it chooses to ignore it instead.  The Robinson story MLB prefers is the one where one of its own – Rickey – beneficently “allowed” Robinson to join his Dodgers, a story that slyly shifts the focus from Robinson to Rickey, thereby permitting MLB to slather itself in glory.  But doing so strips Robinson of his own voice in what is his story, not Rickey’s.  Robinson recognized this and in his 1972 autobiography wrote as much:

There I was, the black grandson of a slave, the son of a black sharecropper, part of a historic occasion, a symbolic hero to my people. The air was sparkling. The sunlight was warm. The band struck up the national anthem. The flag billowed in the wind. It should have been a glorious moment for me as the stirring words of the national anthem poured from the stands.    Perhaps, it was, but then again, perhaps, the anthem could be called the theme song for a drama called The Noble Experiment. Today, as I look back on that opening game of my first World Series, I must tell you that it was Mr. Rickey’s drama and that I was only a principal actor. As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I  cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world. In 1972, in 1947, at my birth in 1919, I know that I never had it made. (emphasis added)

On this Jackie Robinson Day, as with all of the ones that came before it, baseball is celebrating Branch Rickey’s drama and not Robinson’s.  It can do better.  It should do better.  It must do better.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.


By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

We do it all the time, whenever we’re confronted with the bare facts of a reality we’d rather not confront.  Did you see Uncle Phil?  Wow, he looks terrible.  He really let himself go.  Man, he got old.  What a shame.  That’s what happens when you don’t take care of yourself.  And on and on. 

In fact, old Uncle Phil, if he’s old enough, represents something closer to the best-case scenario rather than the worst.  At least he made it that far along in life, not succumbing to illness or fatal injury before reaching his golden years.  Really, we ought to celebrate old Uncle Phil rather than denigrate him, no matter what he looks like now or what shape he’s in.  For in the grand scheme of things he won.  We should be so fortunate.

But we don’t because we struggle to accept the cold realities of aging, of life, of the world as it affected and pummeled poor old Uncle Phil.  We prefer to think that the world can’t touch us if we’re strong enough, if we’re vigilant, if we don’t let it.  We won’t get old, we like to tell ourselves.  We won’t end up like poor old Uncle Phil.

It’s that sort of pretzel logic that helps us make it through our days -- the belief that it’s in our power to remain forever untouched.  It’s comforting to believe this, even though deep down we know that it’s nonsense.

It’s also why we’re so quick to want Scott Kingery out of our sight right now.  His current stat line suggests that he’s earned a ticket to some serious time on the bench.  As of this morning he’s batting .071 with only two hits all season.  Following up on his second half slump in 2019 he appears to be a bust.  After getting all that money – six years and $24 million guaranteed, $66 million if all the options are picked up – he looks like a failed experiment.

And maybe he is.  But right now it’s impossible to tell because Scott Kingery is still, weeks later, dealing with the debilitating aftereffects of Covid-19.  He’s still struggling to breathe as freely as he once did after a particularly brutal battle with the virus that left him – a heretofore healthy 26-year-old world-class athlete – unable to get up and off his couch for three weeks. 

If Covid-19 can hammer someone as young and healthy as Scott Kingery, what can it possibly do to the rest of us?  Worse, once it’s ravaged the system and “recovery” has taken place, what damage might remain?  The possibility that Kingery might never fully recover from his infection is downright frightening.  We can comfort ourselves by saying that he didn’t die from having contracted Covid but it’s far less comforting to consider that he might battle it for the rest of his life.  Truth is, we just don’t know.  And that’s absolutely scary.  Scott Kingery’s reality is the reality we’re all confronting right now – the reality of the terrifying unknown.

So it’s no surprise that we’d prefer to focus on something else.  That the guy had a poor second half and that the Phils would have been better off keeping Cesar Hernandez around rather than entrust second base to the likes of Scott Kingery.  Clearly, we prefer to reassure ourselves with the notion that this is his fault.  He, and he alone, is responsible for his dreadful play up to now.  If he were a better player last year he’d be a better player this year as well.

Again, that may be true.  But, given all we are just starting to understand about Covid and its aftereffects, we're just guessing.  True, young, previously healthy people tend to survive their infections and far fewer of them require hospitalization than unhealthy and/or older victims.  But beyond that we have no idea what the lingering toll of Covid might be. 

It may very well turn out that despite everything we do, Covid can not only touch us but beat us into submission.  Maybe not immediately but eventually.  Scott Kingery is a red-pinstriped representation of that cold, hard reality staring us in the face.  As young as he is, as strong as he is, it took him out and continues to batter him even though we like to tell ourselves that he’s fully recovered.  In fact, he may never recover.

We ought to celebrate the return of Kingery to a big league ballpark.  Just to make it back given what he’s been through and continues to battle is, like poor old Uncle Phil’s, closer to the best outcome rather than the worst.  He “beat” Covid but even so remains at war with it.  This is, as we understand the virus today, the significantly less exhilarating definition of “winning.”

But we’d rather he go away.  We’d rather believe he just isn’t very good.  We’d rather tell ourselves this is just about baseball, nothing else.  Because if it isn’t, it's a helluva lot more difficult to get up in the morning.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.  Stay home and read it.


By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Safe to say that things in baseball haven’t gone as planned.  The Phils played all of three games last week and it’s still unclear when and if they’ll play a fourth.  The Marlins?  Well, they’re the Marlins.  You knew that if this were going to happen to anybody it would happen to them.  Still, they’ve so disrupted everybody else in the eastern divisions that right now both of them are complete chaos.

And yet.

And yet. 

If we’re looking for positives in this 2020 baseball season here’s a big one: the fever grip of stubborn intractability that has had a death grip on the game for over a century has loosened.  Substantially.  It’s had to.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, and all that.  Who knows what will happen once things return to normal.  But maybe now baseball has been freed to fix itself at last.

For decades the game remained obstinately opposed not only to grand change but to even the smallest tweaks.  This is part of its charm but also a large cause of its downfall from its peak way back in the 1950s.  While the NFL’s competition committee meets every year to recalibrate its game, sometimes substantially, baseball has been content to put the same game on the field in perpetuity regardless of whether game action is up, down, or non-existent.  Baseball’s last major change – the designated hitter – is nearing the half-century mark and we’re still debating it. 

The pandemic has made a mockery of that sort of mindset.  It was just a few months ago that baseball was hard-headedly working to figure out a way to somehow shoehorn 162 games into a world that had fundamentally changed overnight.  For the longest time Rob Manfred, Tony Clark, and everybody connected with the game acted like baseball didn’t really exist within the world the rest of us were struggling to adjust to; that despite the fact that toilet paper had become a scarce commodity the Red Sox were going to play a full season no matter what.

That mindset was absurd back in April but you couldn’t convince baseball of that.  Today, however, it’s a radically different story.

Baseball came kicking and screaming to the current 60-game season, moaning about this, that, and the other thing, but now that we’re here it’s much more open to experimentation and change.  Rescheduling series on the fly and seven-inning doubleheaders weren’t changes made because baseball wanted to make them but because it had no other choice.  And the world didn’t end as a result.  Thinking back over the past few weeks it’s clear that changes are being implemented now after much less hemming and hawing.  Let’s hope this continues going forward.

I’m as much of a traditionalist as anybody but some of these changes have me interested in the game in a way I haven’t been for a while.  It took only those three nightmarish games against Miami to remind me of all that has annoyed me about baseball as it had existed prior to the pandemic – long, boring games, little action outside of home runs, a dearth of strategy.  Now, however, we’re going to get seven-inning games every once in a while.  Finally, I’ll be able to make it from start to finish without turning off the set to head up to bed.  (True, I’ll only get to see one of the two scheduled games but I’ll take it.)  The game’s still pretty boring but if we make it to extra innings we’ll see a runner on second to lead off the 10th – a situation that begs the team at-bat to play situational baseball rather than sit back and wait for the long ball.  It’ll baseball as it was played in the 1970s and ‘80s.  I can’t wait.  Throw in the stirrups and sanitary hose and I’m in heaven.

And the season itself – 60 games, 53 games, whatever – gives each contest a sense of urgency it never had before.  Sure, once this all ends baseball will undoubtedly return to its traditional 162 game schedule but maybe it might be open to breaking up the season into segments or pausing the season for a round-robin tournament of some sort. Who knows.  There’s more than one way to play 162 games.  Who says they have to be played the way they’ve been scheduled since 1962?  Baseball says, I guess.  Or at least that’s what it’s said up to now.  But maybe going forward it will be open to looking into how to put a little more excitement, a little more life, into its schedule.

The likelihood is that baseball, being baseball, will refuse to learn from the laboratory experiment that the 2020 season is going to be and will stick its head back in the sand in 2021, returning to us the game we’ve been increasingly dissatisfied with for years now.  But maybe it won’t.

Baseball should have learned once Barry Bonds passed Hank Aaron on the all-time home run list that numbers are just that.  They don’t mean all that much in and of themselves.  They’re not what gives the game legitimacy or provide it with integrity.  In fact, its all-time home run leaderboard, populated as it is with the likes of Bonds, Sosa, and ARod, suggests the opposite.  Once we’re comfortable with the fact that the numbers, as numbers, don’t tell us all that much, we’re freed from the strictures of the game’s historical structure.  Then we can focus on making the game fun and exciting rather than simply the same. 

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.  Buy it and read about a guy who stirred baseball's pot in his own way, breathing life into the game when it so badly needed it.

MLB Tried. It Failed. Let's Learn From It

By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Hey, we all wanted it to work.  And if any institution is going to figure out a Covid workaround it will be one of the professional sports leagues, given the financial investment and potential economic devastation if they can’t.  I wrote in this space back in May about how we should all applaud MLB’s attempt to return in the midst of the pandemic because, let’s be honest here, somebody’s got to give it a shot.  Rather them than my kid.

If MLB, the NFL, NBA and the NHL can’t make it work then how the hell is my kid’s public school district -- perennially cash-strapped and understaffed as it is, and seriously lacking the financial incentive to instill costly best practices -- supposed to?

Continue reading "MLB Tried. It Failed. Let's Learn From It" »


By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

In 2003, the final year of Veterans Stadium, my third base field level tickets cost 26 bucks apiece.  By that point it had become fashionable to call the Vet a dump because, well, it was.  The place was falling apart, it smelled, it was hit-or-miss whether the bathrooms worked (and when they did they stunk of urine because plenty of times it was the fans who missed), the parking lot was dangerous.  Everybody seemed to agree that it was time for it to go.

In 2004 the Phillies moved into beautiful, state-of-the-art Citizens Bank Park.  My Vet seats were swapped for comparable seats in the new digs and they were very nice.  At $40 a pop.  Today those seats will run you $70.  In a moment of timing so perfect that were it to have occurred in the stock market I’d be a millionaire right now, just weeks prior to the pandemic I informed the Phillies that I was done -- $70 was finally the bridge too far for me.  So those are no longer my seats.

With baseball starting back up I feel I am a fan adrift.  And so it hit me: I miss the Vet.  And not because I miss the smell of urine.  I miss it because the fight for the hearts and minds of Phillies fans to support its replacement marked the beginning of the end of accessible baseball for so many of us.  When the Vet imploded the Phillies won and Phillies fans lost.

We lost because the battle over a new stadium wasn’t really a battle over location and construction costs, but a battle over whether the Phillies would be able to delude their fans into fighting their fight for them – to so thoroughly overwhelm the club’s most ardent and diehard supporters with a stink bomb of a stadium in the old Vet that they’d beg the city and the club to build a palace at any cost.  A cash machine disguised as a palace, really, that Hoovered every penny out of their pockets from the parking lot to the final pitch. 

You see, the Vet was only a dump because the Phillies purposely made it so. Over the course of its final several seasons, as the club was simultaneously lobbying for new digs, it picked a series of fights with the city over who was responsible for this or that, and refused to perform all but the most bare bones maintenance on the place because, ultimately, it benefited the club if the Vet went to hell.  And so it did.  The Phils could have stepped up to make the necessary improvements, to fix this or that, to work more amicably with a city government that seemed perpetually on the brink of bankruptcy.  But they didn’t because they knew that if they could only get the fans to fight their battle for them they wouldn’t have to.

In the process the fans lost as the Vet deteriorated and became not only unsanitary but downright dangerous.  Not to worry, the Phillies said, we’re working on getting – for you! -- spectacular new digs, where the concessions will be amazing, everything will be clean, and everyone will feel safe.  The thing is, though, the club didn’t have to put its fans at risk at the Vet.  Through malicious neglect, animus towards the city, and with an eye toward lining its pockets in the process it chose to do so, though.  And that should tell you something.

It should tell you that the Phillies, like all professional sports teams, don’t give a crap about you.  They do give a crap about your wallet, however, as a tour through any of the wave of stadia built since the early’90s stadium boom demonstrates.  And they’ve managed to convince enough of their fans that whatever the Phillies want is what they should want as well.  This is how they won and we lost.

Somehow those within baseball (management AND players) have managed to co-opt the rest of us to do both their bidding and their dirty work for them.  The same way the movie industry convinced moviegoers that the weekly grosses were in any way relevant to their enjoyment of a film, baseball has made what’s important to its bottom line seem important to baseball fans.  And so just as we now care about who was number one at the box office each week (remember box offices?) we seem to think it’s important that the Yankees, Red Sox, and even the lowly Marlins wind up each season not only in the black but comfortably so. 

Baseball talks a lot – even now, in the middle of a pandemic where most people are struggling simply to keep their heads above water -- about “growing the game” and this talking point is repeated mindlessly by those who cover the sport as if it were an inalienable right.  But how does “growing the game” benefit fans?  Growing the game means increasing the money coming into baseball, adding revenue streams, wringing every last dollar out of your pocket for what is essentially the same experience you had a generation earlier at a fraction of the cost.  None of this inures to the benefit of the dwindling multitudes who, before the pandemic, bought tickets or tuned in to watch the games.

And the multitudes were dwindling precisely because baseball’s mindset – as neatly and effectively packaged and presented to you via your favorite columnist or media outlet – is killing the game by shaking down everyone who loves it. 

What if baseball didn’t grow?  What would happen then?  What if, instead, it shrank?  Somebody once said that one should never let a crisis go to waste and right now there exists an opportunity to seize the current one and push for a scaling down of the big business that is Major League Baseball.  After all, forgetting the owners and players for a moment, this would clearly benefit the fans.  A scaling back might lead to a decline in revenue and, accordingly, salaries.  In the process, and given the trending decrease in demand, ticket prices might even decrease, or at least hold relatively steady.  We might see clubs working a bit harder to maintain their now aging stadiums (Camden Yards is now only five years younger than the Vet was when it was imploded) rather than actively work to destroy them in the hopes of getting a gleaming replacement that will only bleed fans dry more efficiently. 

It sounds blasphemous to even suggest – shrinking the pie rather than growing it.  But that’s only because we’ve become inured to follow the whims and wants of big business.  There’s no gravitational or natural law that says we have to.  There’s not even any written law.  We, as a culture, simply decided to, when we weren’t paying attention, when we were distracted by shiny new things such as faux brick baseball malls.  Perhaps now we should start paying attention.

Was the Vet a jewel of a ballpark?  Hardly.  But neither was Brooklyn’s fabled Ebbets Field.  Dodger fans didn’t love Ebbets Field because of the amenities (there were none); they loved it because that’s where their Dodgers played.  Period.  For fans, that’s really all that matters.  But baseball and its attendant scribes enjoy going to great lengths to convince you that that’s not the case. 

As fans and readers of our favorite sportswriters and talking heads (not all, of course, but far too many) it’s pounded into us that we have strict sight-line requirements, insist upon numerous food and beverage options, and relish “premium opportunities” (whatever the hell those are).  But while some of that might be nice, we really don’t need any of it.  Particularly when the associated costs render the game less affordable overall.  After all, you didn’t have any of that before CBP and if you were old enough to remember the Vet as it existed before the mid-90s you loved it anyway, even if you may never have thought about your affinity for the concrete bagel in precisely that way.

CBP is nice, for sure, but every inch of the place is designed to sell you something you don’t need or, really, even want.  Astroturf may have sucked but the Vet’s outfield walls were gloriously free of signage, as was most of the stadium.  On balance, even with the Astroturf, attending a ballgame at the Vet was a purer baseball experience than anything at CBP could ever hope to be. 

Baseball is fun when it’s accessible and affordable.  When it ceases to be those two things it becomes little more than a revenue stream unto itself.  And that’s not fun for anybody without a financial stake in it.  The Vet was this city’s last vestige of accessible, affordable Major League Baseball.

I miss the hell out of it.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.

Does Anyone Know What a "Phillie" Is?

By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Whatever name the Washington football club decides upon going forward we can agree on at least two things: 1) some people will be upset regardless; and 2) no matter the name, if you think hard enough about it you’ll come to the conclusion that it’s stupid even if it isn’t offensive.  Because, really, can you think of a single team name that isn’t? 

Anybody know what a Phillie is?  Or a Seventy-Sixer?  I know what a flyer is, but I’m assuming the Philadelphia hockey team was named after something other than a pamphlet often utilized to advertise something like plumbing services or cut-rate lawn care.  Or maybe it was.  Either way, it’s ridiculous.

Continue reading "Does Anyone Know What a "Phillie" Is?" »


By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

50 games, 70 games, 65 games, whatever. Let’s get this nightmare of a season started, if only so we can all shut up about it and get it over with.  Sort of like the rationale behind leaving for Aunt Rose’s Goulash-infused apartment every few months or so when you were a kid.  Get in the car already so we can all get back in it sooner rather than later to go back home.  There seems to be no better motivation to get things moving on the baseball front that I can see.

Whether it’s 50 games, 60 games, or 70 the season’s going to be a sham no matter what.  Nobody’s going to consider the winner of a division consisting of teams that aren’t even in your team’s division to be anything other than a lamentable stain on baseball’s history anyway so, yes, by all means, MLB, do whatever you have to do to get this show on the road so we can park it back in the driveway as soon as possible. 

Remember when the Expos “won” the NL’s Eastern Division back in the split-season of 1981?  That was exponentially more legitimate than anything baseball might think up in 2020.  And that wasn’t legitimate by a country mile.  Ask the ’81 Reds and Cardinals before you disagree. 

So, sure, put ads on the uniforms if you want.  What the hell does anybody care anymore, anyway?  Everybody’s already angry at Rob Manfred, Tony Clark, the owners, the players, and probably even the poor schmuck with the flags who tells them where to park their cars.  Can there be even a smidgen more animosity between those who put on the game of baseball and the shrinking multitude who still watch it?  I think not.  So go crazy. 

Which was probably behind the decision to go with the universal DH this season.  Hey, almost nobody who watches National League baseball wants it so why not give it to them?  Makes about as much sense to me as anything else baseball has done recently. 

Here in Philly a crap season might be even extra crappy, what with a crap Phanatic to go along with everything else.  Yes, the current plan (wait, there’s a current plan?) does not call for mascots to roam the empty bleachers (insert Miami Marlin mascot wisecrack here) but perhaps baseball can make an exception for the nightmare the Phillies trotted out back in March in order to subvert their legal obligations to the creators of the costume. 

That crass abomination, created – no joke – under the tutelage of a bunch of lawyers, set the tone for the 2020 season before the coronavirus could even take hold.  As soon as you saw that thing in Clearwater you knew 2020 was going to be ugly.  You just didn’t know how ugly.  Now you know.  New Phanatic ugly.  That’s how ugly.

But wait, it gets uglier.  Now comes the news that at least five Phillies training in their Clearwater complex have tested positive for the coronavirus, with 20 more still awaiting test results.  After positive tests came back in some other camps, MLB shut them all down.  Temporarily, they say.  Just like the uniform ad patches and universal DH will all be temporary.  Soon the world will be righted, baseball would have us believe.  And when it is, the ad patches, universal DH, expanded playoffs, and everything else baseball has bungled in an impressively short amount of time will be righted along with it. 

I’ve got a crime scene of a Phanatic that says otherwise.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now. 


By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Until a few days ago I was on the other side.  Baseball -- and basketball, football, hockey, whatever – ought to remain on the sidelines and not jump the queue.  Sure, I missed the games but why should professional sports return now and receive the benefits of enhanced testing while millions of Americans can’t even get hand sanitizer? 

Then I saw MLB's proposed safety plan and realized that this is how we’re all going to figure out how to return to some semblance of normalcy.  And when I say “normalcy,” I’m not referring to attending baseball games.  I’m referring to returning to school, work, shopping, everything.  MLB is volunteering to be the guinea pigs here and we ought to stand up and applaud.  Because better them than us, I think we’d all agree.

Let’s face it, we’re going to need guinea pigs.  When the head of the federal government responds to a nationwide death toll approaching 90,000 by tweeting “Obamagate!” you know you’re on your own here.  It’s going to be up to state and local governments, along with big businesses and universities to figure this out.  And state and local governments lack the resources and financial incentives to lead.  Which leaves the private sector.  For the first time in my life, I’m thankful that American professional sports have become the enormous revenue behemoths they are.  Because they’ve now got too much to lose here by doing nothing.  They’re going to act.  They’re going to experiment.  They’re going to save us all.

MLB’s 67-page document, already referred to as baseball’s “2020 Operations Manual,” is subject to negotiation with and approval by the Players Association (MLBPA) and contains numerous provisions specific to baseball – replacing game balls after they've been handled by multiple players, rules relating to indoor batting cages, locker room saunas, etc. – but also many that could translate to a university or work setting.  If they prove successful, they show us the way out of our homes and back into a functioning, but safe, society.

Pursuant to the Operations Manual, every player and individual at the stadium would be temperature-checked, subjected to a viral test, and have blood drawn to check for antibodies.  Anybody with a temperature above 100 would be banned from entering the stadium and quarantined until cleared by a medical professional.  Contact tracing would also be performed on anybody testing positive. Those passing the initial screening would still be subject to twice-daily temperature checks, regular coronavirus testing, and monthly antibody testing. 

The protocols go on, covering recommendations regarding spitting, social distancing, and other things.  They’re impressive in scope as well as depth.  Will they work?  Who knows?  That’s the thing – nobody knows.  And given that the federal government doesn’t seem to care, somebody has to take a chance.  Somebody has to try SOMETHING.  Right now that somebody is MLB.  If you feel like getting up from your couch and applauding, I’m not going to tell you not to.

Of course, as I mentioned above, none of this will go into effect until approved by the MLBPA.  And that’s not going to be easy.  Blake Snell isn't wrong when he said that returning AND taking a pay cut might not be worth it given the risk.  And Bryce Harper isn’t wrong for agreeing with him.  Yes, these guys make a ton of money, and yes they still stand to make a ton of money even with the proposed pay cut.  But MLB is asking them to literally risk not only their lives and health but that of their families.  All for a reduced salary.  Raise your hand if you’d take that deal where you work.  Didn’t think so.

Anyway, MLB and the MLBPA are going to have to work this out but because they’re both terrifically incentivized to do so, they very well might.  And if they do, we – the fans – reap the benefits two-fold: we get to enjoy live baseball while trapped in our living rooms while at the same time remaining safely cocooned while others assume all the risk for rewards that will run to each and every one of us. 

MLB is taking the first important steps toward showing us the way back.  If it works for baseball there’s a good chance the protocols outlined within its 2020 Operations Manual will dictate how universities welcome students back to campus in the fall.  We all ought to be rooting for baseball here. 

But fear not – it’s still okay to root against the Yankees.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.  You might as well buy it; you've got nothing better to do

PRACTICE By Allen Iverson -- As performed May 7, 2002

By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

Anybody tells you that I missed practice --

If a coach says I miss practice

And y’all hear it.

Then that’s that.


I might have missed one practice this year.


But if somebody says,

He doesn’t come to practice

It can be one practice

Out of all the practices this year

That’s enough.


If I can’t practice I can’t practice.

If I’m hurt I’m hurt.

Simple as that.


It ain’t about that.

It isn’t.

It’s not about that.

At all.


But it’s easy to talk about.

It’s easy to sum it up

When you talk about practice.


We’re sitting here, I’m supposed to be the franchise player,

And we’re talkin’ about practice.

We’re talkin’ about practice.


Not a game

Not a game

Not a game

We’re talkin’ about practice.


Not a game.

Not the game that I go out there and die for.

And play every game like it’s my last.

Not the game.

We’re talkin’ about practice, man.


How silly is that?

We’re talkin’ about practice.


I know I’m supposed to be there.

I know I’m supposed to lead by example.

I know that.

And I’m not shoving it aside like it don’t mean anything.

I know it’s important.

I do.

I honestly do.

But we’re talkin’ about practice, man.


What are we talkin’ about?


We’re talkin’ about practice, man.

We’re talkin’ about practice.

We’re talkin’ about practice.


We ain’t talkin’ about the game.

We’re talkin’ about practice, man.


When you come in the arena,

And you see me play --

You see me play, don’t you?

You see me give everything I got, right?

But we’re talkin’ about practice right now.


It’s funny to me, too.

It’s strange to me, too.

But we’re talkin’ about practice, man.


We’re not even talking about the game.

The actual game – when it matters.

We’re talking about practice.

Mitch Nathanson's biography of Jim Bouton is out now.  You might as well buy it; you've got nothing better to do

Tell Me Again Why I Should Feel Sorry For Athletes During All Of This?

By Mitch Nathanson, Historical Columnist 

When the articles started coming, about ten days ago, I didn’t think much about them.  Articles lamenting the premature end of college athletic careers or, worse, professional athletic careers, due to the coronavirus.  Sad, for sure, that athletes who assumed they had games or entire spring seasons left were now facing the reality that their time as athletes had ended -- without fanfare, “Senior Days,” or even that knowing final moment on the court/field with the knowledge that this was it so best to soak it all in.  On the surface these portraits were heartbreaking.

Thinking more deeply about them, though, I realized that that was the idea.  To break our hearts, to cause us to empathize.  Which, to a point, is certainly not a terrible thing.  But what/who are we empathizing with here?  We’re all in a terrible position right now, no exceptions.  Each of us has already lost something due to the quarantine.  These articles, then, could really be about any of us.  But, of course, they’re not.  They’re about a small segment of us – ones who are, relatively speaking, more privileged than anybody else.  So why, again, are we singling them out, of all people, for our sympathy?

It’s not that I dislike these athletes.  I don’t.  It’s just that I’ve got more important things on my plate right now.  The fact that a Penn softball player won't get to play this year is so far down the list of things I have the bandwidth to care about that I’m not even sure it makes the list at all.  And yet when I read that article, or really, the several just like it (not to pick on that one as it’s no worse than any of the others), I feel as if there’s something wrong with me that it makes me angry rather than sympathetic. 

I’m sure the writers of these pieces were well meaning and, god knows, there’s not all that much for sportwriters to write about these days, but these sorts of articles are dangerous in that they normalize the idea that the privileged among us (however you define it) are somehow entitled to a life without consequence.  It’s why we don’t revolt en masse when there’s another billionaire bailout funded with money collected from taxpayers scraping to get by and why the protests aren’t louder when we similarly throw money at these same people to cover their stadium expenses when they have the funds to do so several times over.  

And it’s why we sort of feel sorry for Ivy League softball players -- who were no doubt the beneficiaries of a thumb on the scale in the admissions office merely because they played softball -- when they’re robbed of the additional glory of participating in Ivy League sports to go along with the Ivy League educations they’re already benefitting from.  Sure, these softball, basketball, lacrosse, players are hardly the equivalent of the billionaires running the banks and building the stadiums, but privilege comes in many shapes, forms and sizes.  It’s the idea that the rest of us should feel sorry for them that they didn’t get the opportunity to take advantage of 100% of their privilege that’s the problem.  And it’s not a small one.

We’re all feeling the pain right now.  Of isolation, of deprivation, of missing out on the things that mean so much to us.  In this way the quarantine has equalized so much that has heretofore been unequal.  Let’s not trivialize our own losses and the ones of our loved ones by magnifying the relatively trivial ones suffered by those who now won't be able to kick, shoot, or catch a ball one final time.