Baseballhead:
What's My Age Again?

Michael Cox

Gather 'round, o ladies and gents, and ye shall again hear the tales spun by the Baseballhead, where "cap day" is to be followed by "male-pattern baldness day."

It's been an interesting week for us who peruse the Major League Baseball news wires, with a number of ongoing stories leaving us unsure whether the sport just got started, or perhaps reminding us that some "traditions" are better off dead.

I won't go into too much detail regarding the Ben Davis bunt single that broke up Curt Schilling's budding perfect game, because Jason Barker did an excellent job of that. However, that situation is an excellent example of how MLB really needs to grow up.

After the game, and after he derided Davis for using a "chickensh*t" way of getting on base in the eighth inning, Arizona manager Bob Brenly said if his own player had done that, he would have privately given said player a stern dressing-down.

Yes, you heard that right, Diamondbacks fans: If the opposing team had a perfect game brewing, Bob Brenly would not do everything within his power to try to win the game. He'd feel an obligation to some sort of "greater interest" that would prevent him from allowing his players to read the opposing defense and execute accordingly. And that's even when the game is tight and the teams are so close in the standings that you can't fit Kate Moss between them.

Didn't Pete Rose get banned from baseball and disqualified from the Hall of Fame because MLB feared he (or someone following his lead) might give in to a "greater interest" and not try his best to win?

I see little difference. You either play to the best of your ability -- which clearly includes exploiting your opponent's weaknesses -- or you don't. Makes you wonder what other circumstances might cause Brenly to "be honorable" rather than "be a winner," doesn't it?

Let's move to an "unwritten rule" that was unwritten by my esteemed colleague: the one titled ""showing up' your opponent." You see, in olden days (roughly defined as the period between the time when the stock market last crashed and Dan Gladden's rookie season) a hitter was to do nothing -- nothing -- to show confidence in his skills or happiness at any accomplishment, up to and including a home run.

The wages of violating this "rule" was to have the ball inserted into your ear canal by the opposing pitcher the next time you came to bat. And remember, there were no wussy helmets or Frank Robinson-ordered suspensions for most of this time.

Times have changed. Sammy Sosa blows kisses to his mom after each homer (from the relative safety of the dugout, mind you). Juan Gonzalez has his sideways skip. Tsoyushi Shinjo was quickly warned that the North American continent was not the place to perform his usual ceremony, which for all the hullabaloo might as well involve kneeling and kissing the plate, performing a tea ceremony, and delivering a short scene from "La Cage Aux Folles."

Is it really so bad?

Do this comparison: watch some movies from the '40s, or at least some "Little Rascals" shorts. Make note of each time an adult in the film is offended by something another person says or does. Also note how many times you had no idea what could have possibly been so offensive.

Then attend a game and note that your team's management has no problem with playing "Hit The Road, Jack" when an opposing pitcher is pulled and "Don't Cry Out Loud" when a visiting manager argues with the umps. In comparison, Ruben Sierra fiddling with his nipples when he goes yard is barely noticed.

Now, no one's saying that there should be breakdancing after every jack. I am saying that when the players' bosses aid and abet a loud playing of "The Musical Clock" while the opponents meet on the mound, the concept of being "shown up" by a personal tic is kind of moot.

Item: Now we turn to the most vile of these "unwritten rules": There Shalt Be No Homosexuals in Baseball.

By now, you all likely know about the alleged relationship between an editor of Out magazine and a major-league player. You may also know that said editor has threatened to unveil the identity of his partner -- hey, because that's what he does.

Oddly, the media talk isn't about who it might be (and believe me, I have my ideas), but of whether the world -- scratch that, just the USA -- is ready for an openly gay player in a team sport.

The consensus seems to be, "no, the climate isn't right." Sportswriters say, "of course not -- the resulting media frenzy would be brutal." Who do they blame? All the other sportswriters, of course.

Then there's the '50s-style climate in the locker rooms. "You almost have to be a misogynist to be accepted," former closeted player Billy Bean told Fox Sports News recently. In other words, if you're Al Martin or Bobby Chouinard, no problem, because at least you like girls. This theory seems to be borne out by the ease with which these players are accepted back into the clubhouse. Add to that the fact that many players are drafted out of high school, missing out on the experience of higher education, and you may just have a volatile cocktail of testosterone.

However, the pundits and players have forgotten once again to read their history texts. Let's go back to the last time an "outsider" was introduced into baseball. That would be one Jackie Robinson. (Actually, it would be the Jackie Robinson, but I digress.)

It wasn't the players' idea to have Robinson in the majors. It wasn't the sportswriters'. There was no public groundswell to break the "color barrier."

It was the team owner.

Now flash forward to, say, this year. As always, most owners are captains of industry. Some are huge corporations. Almost all are familiar with this country's laws against discrimination in the workplace. Businesses fall over each other to present a face of diversity.

The only person on a ballclub who really has to support a gay player is the owner of that ballclub. Everything else will fall into place, perhaps slowly, but with time. There will be players who will support a gay teammate or opponent; players like David Cone, who was once asked if he would have a problem with a gay teammate and responded simply, "No. Why should I?"

Of course, for every Cone there will be at least one Chad Curtis. Curtis, in case you don't remember, told the New York Times, "If you polled every player in this room, they would tell you they wouldn't want to even have the thought that another guy on the team might be checking them out." (By the way, Curtis was referring to a Yankee clubhouse which at the time included Cone. Oops.)

Fortunately, Cones tend to be the team leaders and role models, while you can snap in a Curtis replacement without even a hex wrench.

Also, detest him as I may, Bud Selig recently confirmed his stance on this issue when he personally took Cubs reliever Julian Tavarez to task for using a derogatory term for "gay" in reference to Giants fans. How often do you see Selig get involved in a player issue like this? Well?

And the sportswriters? Las I looked, most of their papers were owned by the same types of conglomerates that own the teams (and in the Cubs' case, the exact same one). And these are by and large big-city papers, with big-city editorial policies. Will the world miss the average MLB beat writer if their papers fire them for impropriety? (Answer: do you even have to think about that?)

Finally, the real question -- what will it solve to have some players come out? Well, like when Robinson first took the field, it will change attitudes and make the game a better reflection of life. I think the Chad Curtises of MLB will be surprised at just who they've been sharing a shower with. There could be anywhere from 50-100 gay major-leaguers, and chances are that at least one of the players in your favorite team's lineup is gay. (Oh, and by the way, if you work out at a gym, you've showered with gay men, too. Bet they never once "checked you out.")

The goal is not to linger over it, or have it repeatedly hammered into our collective skulls. Like the "color barrier," the goal for us is to simply acknowledge and move on, so that the players affected can get on with their lives without having to harbor a part of themselves like it's a secret shame.

Will it cause upheaval? Hell, yes! Will it cause the end of the world? Hell, no!

Will it mean a better standard of personal grooming among MLB players?

Oooh, I hope so...

about the author

Michael Cox is not gay; he just likes to keep his house tidy. He can, however, pass on some grooming tips from his gay college roommates if you ask nicely at mc@strikethree.com.