History lessons

Maybe it's not the worst thing in the world that a bunch of games today were rained out, preventing many from wearing Jackie Robinson's number that suddenly became a minor controversy. I guess the impact was literally watered down.

Honoring Jackie's 60th anniversary is obviously important, but sometimes you have to wonder if the players are the least aware of the impact of the day, compared to fans, writers and front-office folks. It seems like a player being a fan of the history of the game is actually news as opposed to something assumed.

For example, the announcers on a Yankees game gave particular notice to Robinson Cano's knowledge of the game -- of course, his dad was a former big leaguer and he was named after Jackie Robinson as well. YES announcer (and former big leaguer) John Flaherty said that he was more interested in playing baseball than watching it and probably following some of the history behind it as well. You can't always blame them, obviously. Players need to make a living by improving their game, and you don't always have time to study up on the past; you're worried about yourself, not what someone did 15, 20, 25, 50 years ago.

Many athletes like to tell the media that you can't appreciate what they do because they never played the game, yet many writers and fans seem to have a better grasp on the history that frames the current accomplishments and gives a sense of perspective. And that comes to light a lot when former players dispense coaching advice to current players.

For instance, it seemed like a godsend that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was able to tutor Andrew Bynum on how to play center. The fact that Bynum knew who Kareem was and knew that he would be a great teacher was actually news. At least it was a superstar. I was discussing with a co-worker that some younger players today may not be as receptive to a former star of less long-lasting significance trying to mentor them. Sure, someone will listen to Kareem given his history; but would someone else be as receptive listening to, say, Jack Sikma giving out basketball advice? The results would probably be mixed.

And going back to the Jackie Robinson day discussion, there has been some hand-wringing about the lack of African-Americans in the game today. In some ways, the grousing about it diminishes the influx of Latino and now Asian players in the league. The league is probably more diverse than ever before, but "diverse" never just means "a lot of different things."

It does seem like more African-Americans are gravitating toward football and basketball for a variety of reasons. Part of it is the quicker money, and some of it could be the extra attention at an earlier level (high school and college baseball don't get anywhere near the pub of football and basketball). I'm sure there are other reasons, and the awkward presence of Barry Bonds can't help matters.