Sam Morley

RBIs count. They are, as is every statistic, opportunistic. Aside from the rare bases loaded walk/HBP, you can't get RBIs unless you swing the bat. Kepler, Polanco, and Cruz, often hit in front of Rosario, and often in that order. They all have good OBP, all higher than Rosario's. Scenario: Kepler draws a walk to lead off. Polanco hits a weak ground ball, getting thrown out but advancing Kepler to second. Cruz strikes out. Rosario hits a single. Kepler scores. Sano Strikes out. Inning over, RUN SCORED. Flip Kepler and Rosario- same scenario, same individual production for each player. Rosario singles, advances on Polonco's out. Cruz Ks. Kepler walks. Sano Ks. Inning over, NO RUN SCORED. It's just one scenario, right. But it exemplifies the value of the single in comparison to the walk depending on lineup construction. The best a walk can be is equal to a single, but often, a single is far greater than a walk. Kepler's walk total is comparable to Rosario's singles total. If Rosario traded 20 of his singles for 30 walks, it would be a significant bump to his OBP, but his RBI total goes down, probably under 100. Taking a walk when given it, and having a measured, consistent approach to batting are valuable to a team's success, undoubtedly. These are not a part of Rosario's game. Everyone crushed Mauer, wrongly, for the duration of his career for being one of the best ever at practicing such an approach. He got crushed for not being willing to guess or expand or surprise. Mauer is an all-time Twins great, but he wasn't willing (in his approach to batting) to take a risk or a chance to be a hero. He wasn't willing to gamble on his own natural ability as a hitter in favor of doing the right thing as a batter. I'm a fan of Joe. I loved watching him play. I wish he was in the dugout/on the field for the 2019 run. But, there were many times when I was ready to lose my mind watching Joe take a walk with a runner on when we needed an RBI. And that doesn't mean he was wrong. It does mean I'm happy to have Eddie up there going after that RBI, even when he ends up looking like a fool. It's pretty hard to strike a balance between patience and aggression. I mean, they are pretty antonymous. Most guys are going to sacrifice a fair bit of one for the other. The guys that have it balanced, the best of both, are Mike Trout. So if Rosario could add 20 walks to his 2019 total, without losing any singles, he'd be even higher on that list of MVP candidates, he'd be a lot closer to Mike Trout.

I'm a fan of Rosario. I think he's probably my favorite player on the team. I hope they extend him. Of the Twins outfielders, I think Rosario has been the most productive over the last three seasons: Byron Buxton: G- 255 R- 125 RBI- 101 HR- 26 BA- .245 Max Kepler: G- 437 R- 245 RBI- 217 HR- 75 BA- .239 Eddie Rosario: G- 426 R- 257 RBI- 264 HR- 83 BA- .284 The fangraphs 2020 projections have Kepler and Rosario nearly identical, with the exception of BA and BB rate. But when you add their hits and walks they both come out around 200. It seems like many commenters are placing a high value on plate discipline and on base percentage, which generally equates to more walks and fewer hits, (evidently the case with Rosario and Kepler). They both hit a comparable amount of extra base hits; the difference is that Rosario hits more singles, and Kepler draws more walks. So which is more valuable, the walk or the single? It depends on the percentage of those singles that come with runners on base or runners in scoring position. If the amount of times that you are on base is comparable, then your opportunity to score is comparable. But if the way you arrived on base is by hit, rather than walk, you have a higher chance of having driven in a run. So, to me, all other things equal, the natural hitter is more valuable than the plate discipline guy. Obviously a plate discipline guy helps run up the pitch count, and free swinger is prone to a quick out. So that's a point for the plate discipline guy. Frankly, the more I talk about it, the more I think you need both types, and the Twins had a nice balance and maybe that's why they were so good.

THIS

Bob Gibson would probably deliberately harm a fellow baseball player

I didn't read this yet, but the answer to the question title is: no.

I think you better... "Twins Daily commenter bullied by other Twins Daily commenters for homemade jersey receives season tickets from Twins and authentic autographed Thad Motter jersey."

Puig was giving 100%. He was 100% engaged in that AB, physically, mentally, emotionally. That's why he reacted the way he did. He was pissed. If he didn't care, he would've jogged it out, but he was furious. His teamates know it. His manager knows it. Giving 100% is laying out for a ball on the track; it's going first to third on a single and going into third headfirst; it's battling hard for a hit in every AB. That's who Puig is. That's why he didn't get pulled for lack of hustle, and why he never will. As for those in this thread who have a different opinion of what hustle and giving 100% are about, you have a valid opinion. It's different from mine, but I don't have a problem with it. As for the fans who booed Puig the other night: Fans are stupid. They're also at least a touch racis… ahh, well... Go Twins!

A team reliant on Mike Pineda for success in the post season has no chance in the post season anyway.

I meant by "appears" is that he pitches well enough by combination of stuff and experience to get out AAA hitters and put up good stats. He could be good enough to get AAA hitter out but not good enough to get MLB hitters out. I hope you're right. You probably are. I still don't think any of the scenarios are implausible, maybe unlikely, but not out of the question or even without precedent. It seems possible to me, that whether or not he is "fixed" (which is just a muddy a term in this context as "appears" was in mine) he will be given an opportunity because of his past success and because of his relationship with Falvey in Cleveland, not to mention the state/performance of the current bullpen. Those are good reasons. It seems worth the risk to me. It is not without risk.

Hypothetical Scenario: He appears to pitch great at AAA. He gets called up. He stinks and costs the Twins games. Hypothetical Scenario 2: He doesn't even pitch well at AAA. He gets called up anyway because of cognitive dissonance. He stinks and costs the Twins games. Hypothetical Scenario 3: He pitches great at AAA. He gets called up. He pitches fine, maybe even well, for a while. The FO thinks the bullpen problems are solved and don't acquire an actually good relief pitcher. After it's too late to do anything about, maybe in the postseason even, he stinks and costs the Twins games and maybe even the season. Those are three realistic scenarios. I'm not saying they are likely. I'm not saying I think it was a bad signing. People are saying there is no risk. I'm pointing out that there is. The risk is that he performs badly and costs games and takes the roster spot of someone who might've performed well.

The risk is that he stinks and that he costs 2, 3, or 4... games before the Twins move on. Maybe the Twins can afford that. Maybe it's worth the risk; it probably is. But there is definitely a risk.

Miguel Sano is a very good player. He's a very good hitter and a very good third baseman; today. I think he's probably going to get better. I think he'll probably have several all-star caliber seasons. One determining factor will be whether he can avoid injury or not. Another factor is whether he is motivated to be his best and maintains his optimal performing fitness. Maybe those two factors are connected. I don't feel very confident about him being succesful in either factor. I think avoidance of injury can be connected to both luck and maintainance of fitness. I think maintainance of fitness is connected to work ethic. I think work ethic is connect to character. I doubt his character. I doubt his work ethic. I doubt his ability/willingness to maintain fitness. I doubt the likelihood of his avoiding injury. I think his pure athletic ability could carry him through a lot, along with some good fortune. I was a huge Sano fan. Like most TD members, I followed his career from signing- probably on a daily basis through the minor leagues. I don't think I had ever been as excited for a prospect to arrive at the Twins, as I was for Sano. In my mind, he was a superstar before he arrived. What a player does on the field is obviously the biggest factor in their level of popularity and recognition, whether or not they reach star status or superstar status or whatever. But what (ASIDE: as I type this, Sano just hit a bomb to right center in whatever the Tigers' stadium is called now) a player does off the field also impacts their popularity and stardom. There's nothing Sano can do on the field that will erase, for me, the wrongness of what he was accused of. Even If there were anything he could do off the field to make up for it, he won't. If he did what he was accused of, he did it because he thought he would get away with it. And he did. The league, the team, and the fans let him off the hook. I began by saying that I think Sano is good and that I think he will get better. I think this because of his talent, and despite his repeatedly demonstrated poor character. But I think that a case can be made that because of his poor character, he will not get better. He will stay the same or get worse. In which case, a reasonable action would be to move him. Therefore, I don't think the premise of this article is as bad as most of the posters in the thread do. Otherwise, in order of preference, I suggest: Cut him and sign Mauer Cut him Trade him Mandate attendance of sexual violence awareness classes indefinitely That's just me though, and my opinion is pretty disconnected from his performance. (Though, his long term performance may be connected to his quality of character, which I estimate to be poor).

Sano was cleared of all accusations? When? By whom?

Parker and his 91 mph fastball were really going for the bullseye last night. Everyone is always talking about how great it is to paint the corners, but no one ever gives credit for nailing the exact dead center of the strike zone. Tip of the hat, B.

I just did a couple practice swings. It seems like the early wrist rollover and the front arm being close to the body come together when using a 'hands first' approach or an approach where I throw my hands toward the contact point. This in contrast with a rotational approach where my hips lead, my hands stay back but then are whipped through by the lat/core tension- when I do this, there is automatically more space between my lead arm and body, and my wrist doesn't roll over early. Can't say whether or not somebody was in buck's ear about an old school charley lau throw your hands at the ball approach to hitting, and now the spirit of Ted Williams has set him straight, but these before and after samples are pretty cool. Parker, I have been following your hitting analysis on TD for the last five years or so, and I think this might be your best yet. Those are some pretty subtle differences in those videos/photos, and not easy to see, let alone synthesize into a larger theory that is probably correct and not just speculative. What inspired you to look for those specific changes in his swing? The arm-body space is especially difficult to see.

What was with 'Richard' going on and on about how Sano's first double should've been caught and should've been ruled an error? The guy's been watching baseball for like 60 years and still doesn't know the threshold for outfield errors. The ball should've been caught, yes, but the fielder was sliding and didn't touch it. An outfielder basically has to be standing still and have the ball bounce out of his glove before they ever rule an error. Love when Latroy Hawkins is in the both. He's so weird.

A hitter positions himself relative to the plate so that he has full plate coverage with a repeatable swing. He doesn't want to change his swing for any reason- not to pull or "push" the ball, not to reach a pitch in a specific location. He wants to swing the same every time. He wants to cover the width of the strike zone with authority. To hit a ball with authority you contact with the ball on the sweet spot of the barell. With a repeatable, mechanically correct swing, on an inside pitch you want to make contact out in front of where your stride foot lands- you will pull this pitch. On an outside pitch, with the same swing, you want to make contact deeper, a little past where your stride foot has landed- you will hit this pitch to the opposite field. If you are early on an outside pitch, in anticipation of an inside fastball, you will make weak contact. Often a hitter is early with his lower half, recognizes the location (or offspeed pitch) and tries to slow his hands down and/or reach to make contact. his weight is on a flexed front leg, his butt sticks back, his back arm is extended at the point of contact instead of in a "power L". The contact is weak. I'm not saying that no one has ever pulled an outside pitch. I'm saying it's unusual, and generally unlikely. When there are so many things to keep track of and react to as a hitter (location, velocity variability, movement) one approach to making things a little easier is to isolate focus. You can do this from pitch to pitch based on a variety of information, and obviously the extent to which a hitter is intellectually capable of doing this will have an impact on his success. You can also do it generally. Some hitters will just disregard a whole portion of the zone. I would say pretty much every hitter has done this to some extent. Even Ted Williams pretty much eliminated low and away. I think the way hitters do this differs along two different paths. One is that a hitter recognizes the pitch in the eliminated part of the zone, and refuses to swing at it. The other is that a hitter doesn't make the recognition and swings as though he hopes the pitch will be in the part of the zone he likes. The former is a better approach, but it relies on the abilities of the hitter to work. For a hitter whose spray chart is so heavy to the pull side that a defense shifts to that side (this is a hitter who is obviously isolating focus on middle-inside part of the zone) the pitcher's job is easier. He can expose the hitter for called and swinging strikes on the outer third, and force him to hit into the shift on the inner third (the area the hitter is focused on). The hitter is left with (as this article suggests): beat the shift by hitting over it with launch angle plus exit velocity. So, either hit a jack or get lucky. I would say this is pretty much what we see now in MLB. Hitters are successful at hitting more home runs, but the chances of any other hard hit (or weakly hit) ball landing for a base hit are reduced significantly, with the exposed vulnerable parts of the strike zone yielding more strike outs. A hitter who can "go with the pitch"- pull the inside pitch and hit the outside pitch away- with the same powerful swing, has a serious advantage over the hitter who isolates. One of the tricks to being able to hit the outside pitch with authority is that you have to "wait" for it, which is a weird concept when we're talking about milliseconds. You have to wait for it to travel just a little bit deeper in the zone, like maybe 8-12 inches deeper. (Also, how the &!%# do you "wait" when the pitch is coming well over 90 mph most of the time?) I think the hitters who do this successfully, are focused first on the outer third- they are thinking about "waiting" and letting the ball travel a little deeper and driving it the other way; AND, they are trusting their instincts to recognize and quickness to react to the inside pitch and pull it. Ability to recognize (location or pitch type) is increased by the extra wait time. It can also be increased by "shortening" the swing- less load action (maybe no leg kick, maybe the hands fire from a position closer to the point of contact rather than loading back to a more powerful counter rotated position, a position farther from the point of contact)- this would obviously sacrifice power in favor of contact. The closer that your hands are to the point of contact when they fire, the longer you can wait before firing. It is a HUGE advantage to be able to cover the outer third and hit the ball to the opposite field. To be able to do it with authority (and still be able to recognize, react, and turn on the inside pitch) is a demonstration of exceptionally capable hitting. To do it, a hitter has to have exceptional vision, be smart, have a mechanically powerful, repeatable swing, be able to "wait", and be able to react with elite quickness. Vision can be measured, and corrected to an extent if needed. Intelligence can be evaluated (and maybe improved???). A swing can be learned. Ability to wait can be learned. Quickness can be measured, and it can be optimized. I bet most MLB guys have the vision, swing, and quickness. I bet their intelligence is generally disregarded. I bet (traditionally) hitting instructors put a lot of effort into teaching hitters how to "wait". I'm happy to see launch angle and exit velocity embraced, and in particular the amended philosophy on bat path to facilitate increases in launch angle and exit velocity. I think even, along these lines, it is fine for some hitters to have a pull first approach. That approach would be relative to their intellect and to their skills, and maybe for them it happens to be optimal and it makes them the most productive hitter they can be. I think a hitting instructor's job is to help them figure that out. If I'm a hitting instructor, the general approach I advocate is to think 'cover the outer third to the opposite field first, and trust my quickness to react to the inner third'. It's interesting that while annual home run totals are up relative to league history, annual home run totals for the league's elite hitters are pretty stable. Mike Trout is the best hitter in baseball. He doesn't strike out a lot, he walks a lot, his avg is over 300, his obp is over 400, he hits 30-40 dingers. it's pretty comparable to elite hitters of the past (home run spikes of the steroid era aside). Recent elites, Miguel Cabrera and Albert Pujols have similar numbers. The overall annual homerun total increases are not accounted for in elite hitters hitting more homeruns, but rather sub-elite hitters, and even sub all-star hitters hitting more homeruns. I'll draw from this that the approach of elite hitters has stayed constant over time, and that we see sub-elite hitters favoring one approach/result over another (presently, power over contact). If the league has a temporary trend in a specific direction, in order to be competitive in the league you either have to be among the best at executing the characteristics of the trend or find the weaknesses in the trend and expose them with opposing characteristics. The teams that will be the best at executing the trend will be the teams that are willing to spend the most money, or get lucky in the draft/develop their talent most successfully. Maybe the Twins will be one of these teams. They usually aren't. I hope they are, because I don't see any signs of them being an organization ready to find and expose the weaknesses of trending MLB defense/pitching strategy. I wonder if there are any organizations out there who have been recruiting/developing contact hitters. I would like to see it. I think a lineup of hitters who aren't exposable on the outer third would tear up the league. And I think they could have a sustained run. I think it would take a while for organizations to adjust. I'm not advocating for a return to small ball. I stand firmly against the sacrifice bunt. It's a waste of an out. I don't think it's exciting. I do like a hit and run- maybe in an offspeed count, with a runner who has a chance of a clean steal anyway, and with a non-elite hitter at the plate. Hit and runs are exciting. I would like to see more balance from hitters, even if it means a drop in power from guys like, say, Brian Dozier. I would be happy to see bunts for hits into the shift. I would be happy to see it over and over and over again until the shift goes away, if that's what it takes. The shift is ugly. I would rather see the game take care of it naturally than have it legislated away. Chicks dig the long post.

He switches which knee is down often. Does anyone have insight into why/when it changes? It's not singly relative to the handedness of the batter, nor does it seem to be singly relative to the pitch. Could it be random? What is the risk of tipping pitches/location? Some of his movements in that video are really extreme, like he snatches his glove what appears to be more than six inches several times. I understand curling and cushioning toward the center, but I don't understand how such dramatic movements can be effective. Aren't umpires resentful of such overt deception? If I was umping and I saw a catcher yanking his glove around like that, I would really be on guard- I might even tell him to knock it off. Or maybe when you are trying to steal every single pitch, even the outlandish ones, it makes the close ones seem even closer by comparison. In my mind, framing is about moving the ball closer to the zone without it seeming like you're moving the ball closer to the zone.

First, I don't think the pace of play is a problem. Were it, I don't think any of the proposed rule changes will affect the pace of play enough to address the "problem". Shortening the overall game length by five or so minutes will not make the game any more appealling to people who already think that baseball is boring. They will not notice any difference. A diffinitive characteristic of baseball, in contrast to other team sports, is that there is not clock or timer. While all of the other major team sports rely on a clock as a necessary part of the structure that makes their sport possible, baseball was uniquely designed and created to not need one. Keep clocks out of baseball. It seems like the roster expansion runs in conflict with the aims of quickening pace and shortening game length. In particular, if there were a three batter minimum, it reasons that fewer pitchers will be used per game. It seems like an additional player available will increase the amount of pitching changes per game, therefor lengthening the duration of games. I think, pace aside, the three batter minimum rule could encourage managers to return to relying on starters in a more traditional way, asking them to pitch deeper into games than has been the recent trend. It seems like often when a manager goes to an early hook (in anticipation of damage, not as a result of) they often bring in a one out specialist. I don't really like the trend away from reliance on starting pitching. I think that starters are the best pitchers, and I want to see them pitch. I want to see what they are made of when the going gets tough. As for the DH in the NL... who cares. The NL is Mars. Let them be Martians, and when on Mars, do as the Martians do.

I think there are basically two schools of hitting: the Ted Williams Science of Hitting which instructs rotational hitting with a slight uppercut bat path; and a hands first approach that I think was popularized by Charley Lau, but you'd hear Tony Gwynn talk about it, and it's what you hear from Kepler some too. In my opinion, the Ted Williams theory is the correct theory. I used to source a lot of hitting mechanics info from a website called ChrisOleary.com and I think he does a really excellent, thorough job of frame by frame swing analysis that confirms Williams' ideas. He points out, and I agree, that even hitters who say they believe in the hands first theory, don't actually even swing that way when you analyze their swing frame by frame. Max Kepler might say that he has a hands first approach, but he doesn't. he has a rotational swing with slight uppercut. Sometimes as a hitter you adopt a mental approach to help over compensate for a negative developing trend. If I feel like I'm popping up a lot, I'll start telling myself to come down on the ball and that's what I imagine myself doing. It seems, sometimes, to help straighten things out, but I'm never actually swinging down on top of the ball. I sometimes wonder, if Kepler would be well served by embracing the concept of the slight uppercut. There were power hitters who believed in the "downward" hands first swing. They thought that putting backspin on the ball helped the ball carry farther. I'm certain this has been physically debunked. The best way to hit the ball the hardest and the farthest is to meet the ball on the same angle that it is coming toward you. The ball is always coming to you at a downward angle from the pitcher's release point, so to meet the ball squarely, you have swing with a slight uppercut. "Launch angle" is a new term. It's interesting. The uppercut swing is not new. Also the repeated use of "uppercut" makes it sound like guys are taking golf swings up there. If you freeze frame any homerun swing at the point of contact, the uppercut is subtle. Guys' follow throughs will give the appearance of a massive uppercut, with their hands finishing up high, but the follow through is just the result of what's come before (how do you load, rotate, and transfer your weight). One other thing that's been debunked is the old 'squash the bug' with your back foot. It turns out that in a proper swing, the foot twisting or rolling over is a result of the hips rotating and snapping, and that at the point of contact, most hitters' back foot is actually off the ground for a fraction of a second. If you're focusing on 'squashing the bug' then your actually holding back some of the power you've generated in your hips, you aren't letting all of your weight transfer through.

A team in the Twins position should be looking to add starting pitching that will take them from being a playoff looser to a playoff winner. Darvish, Archer, Arrieta, maybe Cole are names that have been out there that would have that effect if added. Odirizzi, Cobb, Lynn, McHugh wouldn't. They will get you through the season, maybe help you make the playoffs and then not have what it takes when the competition ramps up against great teams. The ways to acquire an impact starter are through free agency, trade, or development. We missed Darvish. It sounds like they aren't interested in Arrieta. There isn't anybody else in free agency unless you get lucky on a reclamation project. Getting Archer would be good. McHugh is a decent starting pitcher. He's not going to come for nothing. You're going to have to give up assets you like for a guy who isn't really going to make a difference in the postseason. If they can't put a rotation together through free agency and/or trade acquisition that can be great in the playoffs, then I'd rather see what the young guys can do, and I definitely don't want to lose any young guys to get veteran mediocrity. I suppose the likes of one or two of those 2nd tier guys could keep the Twins competitive through the all star break and put them in position to be buyers at the trade deadline where they could potentially add somebody who could make a difference in the playoffs.

Nobody would say that Mack was better than any of those players, besides maybe Smalley and Jones, even though he had a higher OPS. If OPS doesn't demonstrate that Mack is better than Mauer, Puckett, Oliva, or Carew, why would it demonstrate that he was better than Hunter or Jones? Mack never hit 20 home runs in a season. He had one season where he scored 100 runs, and wasn't really close in any other season. He never even approached 100 RBI. Jones and Hunter both have the edge in all three of these counting categories. Mack has the edge in the % categories. He deserves credit for that, and if he did it for a decade, he'd probably be the man, but he only had a handful of seasons with the Twins, only two truly full seasons. And what can you really say about his shortened monster of a season in 94 other than that it was a monster of a half season? Maybe he would've maintained that production over the course of the full season, or maybe he would've leveled off a bit, like so many players who have monster first halves. Tenure or no, Hunter was better, and I don't think it's close. Hunter has at least five seasons with the Twins that are each better than Mack's best season. I like Mack, but I wanted to see if there was anyone in left with more tenure with the Twins that compared, and I think there is a good case for Jones. I think if you take Jones top three or four seasons with the Twins and compare them to Mack's top three or four, Jones is better. If you take Jones' best five and comp them to Mack's five, Jones nearly doubles him in HRs, and surpasses him in runs, RBI, and doubles, where Mack has the edge in walks, triples, and SBs.

I would've cut you some slack if you had put Torii in left. Even if you're being strict, I'd say Jaque Jones is a better choice in left than Shane Mack. Not sure how you picked Koskie over Gaetti at third. This baffles me a bit. I don't think it's close. I think Gaetti has him at the plate, in the field, and in tenure. I think Gaetti has him in best single season and in overall career stats as well. You're assessment of Gaetti as 'not a great player' is off. His career numbers are borderline HOF. Also, he was pretty exclusively a third baseman. I was hoping to build a case for Cristian Guzman at short over Smalley. It would be a stretch. I love Chuck Knoblauch, I like him more than Brian Dozier, but Brian Dozier is better. Given how terrible it appears Carew was in the field (33 errors at 2nd in 1974!) I think I'd put Dozier at second and have Carew as the utility guy. Having Dozier in the lineup gives this present era a little more representation. I think I would cut Koskie and keep Knoblauch. I'd prefer to see another starter who just missed the cut in the 'middle relief' role over Tom Hall, who admittedly (perhaps embarrassingly) I've never heard of. I'd take Eddie Guardado over Juan Rincon.

I wouldn't couple 'least intrusive' with 'most natural'. It could be done in an un-intrusive way. That doesn't make it natural. It's still an artificial element, and in that regard, I'm resisting it on principle, not necessarily on effect. As to the effect, my prediction is that it will be intrusive to viewing the game, mostly on TV. I think broadcasts will treat it the same way the NFL broadcasts treat the play clock, and the NBA treats the shot clock. It works great for those games because those sports are structurally built around a clock that counts down. A clock that counts down is natural to those games. When I'm watching baseball on TV, I don't want to see a countdown clock blinking red next to the ball-strike-out graphic. I don't want to hear commentators referencing or talking about the clock. I don't want it in the stadiums either, next to the radar gun reading or wherever, so that fans at the game can start countdown chants while a pitcher is getting ready to deliver. I guess, if they give the umps a little pocket stop watch and tell them the time allotments and to enforce them, that seems like a reasonable place to start.

Where is the thread? Polls are bogus. In twenty years "the vast majority of people who watch baseball will be dead and virtually all of them are white"? Bogus. Of professional sports in the U.S., baseball is by far the most racially diverse. The NHL is homogenous, the NBA is homogenous, the NFL is more diverse than those two but less diverse than MLB. The NFL will be dead by 2040... maybe.