Andrew McCutchen: Yankees’ hair policy ”takes away from our individualism as players and as people.“

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I haven’t done the math, but if you did, I think you’d find that a ban on facial hair disproportionately impacts black players. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily racist, but it’s fair to expect a better reason for the policy than “the convicted felon who used to own the team liked it that way.” The MLBPA ought to file a grievance.
I am WAY out of my league here and someone please tell me if I'm off base, but I'm sure I read something along these lines because African-Americans are far more prone to skin irritation and ingrown hairs if they shave every day. I could be completely full of shit on this, but if I'm not this strikes me as a compelling reason to get rid of the facial hair policy.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I haven’t done the math, but if you did, I think you’d find that a ban on facial hair disproportionately impacts black players. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily racist, but it’s fair to expect a better reason for the policy than “the convicted felon who used to own the team liked it that way.” The MLBPA ought to file a grievance.
How the hell does that logic work? All players are equally able to grow facial hair... All players are equally able to shave facial hair... black players are disproportionately affected how???

A single team has said it's facial hair policy is a condition of employment. Where exactly is the grievance?

Edit: And if we are counting, if I shave every day my skin gets ripped to shreds due to irritations, ingrown hairs, etc. I've still had to conform to work at companies that had a policy of clean shaven or a well kept beard - nothing in between. So my face was constantly in turmoil (some would argue it had nothing to do with the shaving! lol) Lot's of guys (myself included) would come back from vacation with a beard, because that was the only way to get enough of a head start to fit into the "well kept" category.

Edit 2: Maybe I just don't know how to shave properly.... off to youtube.
 
Last edited:

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
It's important that current players mirror the button-down professionalism of consummate company-men like Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle.

It's stupid, and personally I think baseball's antitrust exemption makes any compulsory rule like this about personal appearance questionable at best. If Apple doesn't want to hire me because I have visible tattoos, I can apply at Microsoft, Google, or any of thousands of different companies where I can be a software engineer. If I'm drafted by or traded to the Yankees, not only can I not just choose another team, I can't even choose another league because MLB is allowed to be the only game in town.

Is shaving a huge sacrifice to make? Probably not in most cases. Is allowing your players to have facial hair a huge sacrifice to make? Also no. So I side against the party that is enforcing an arbitrary rule on the other.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
How many people have missed on jobs in corporate america because they've shown up with tattoos or body markings that didn't fit into the corporate image? Companies have always been able to say "this is the image we want to project". No one is saying there is a performance benefit - other than to say that symbolically shaving/conforming puts you on the same page as everyone else and more specifically to the image that is conveyed to the paying customer. I mean if not, then there isn't any reason in baseball that each player can't wear their own custom designed uniform. Psychologically speaking, Joe over there might perform better wearing a calming soft blue colored uniform, why shouldn't he be allowed to wear it? It's not like it's going to affect the game. Chris Sale objected to the uniform his team decided to wear for marketing reasons - shouldn't he get to choose what he wears every day if it doesn't affect his performance? If Joe rookie wants to wear bright red lipstick onto the field, should his team be able to say no? I remember being forced to watch orientation videos as a young teen about corporate standards at the local Dunkin Donuts about what could or could not be worn while in front of the customer - from nail polish colors for women, to earrings, to jewelry in general, undershirts, what color shoes, everything. It's life when you want to work for a company - especially a company that values it's corporate image. I'm not crying over a young athlete looking at hundreds of thousands on the minimum MLB salary when I had to conform to make minimum wage at Dunks, and later wearing suits to be able to work as a programmer at an insurance company - the computer didn't care what I was wearing. And if it doesn't bother the Yankees that they might lose a player or 12 in the minors over the policy, or maybe a free agent who doesn't want to conform... as I've said, they seem to have done decently well running their organization over the years... daddy's rules or not.

Facial hair is an issue in the Bronx, music is an issue in Foxboro. Wes Welker made a joke in public at an opposing coaches expense and was benched for it. "We don't do that here. It's not how we comport ourselves." Humor is as individualistic as it gets. The various details don't matter, individuals meshing into the organizational approach do. Sure some is about distractions, and minimizing them. Some is about "the professionalism that we conduct our business with". Go back in time, Wooden cared how his players tied their shoes, how they wore their warm-up clothes. If you want to lump sum the whole "professional/corporate appearance" as antiquated that's cool. I still think it still has it's value. There are things that are bigger than we are, in sports it's the team. But I'm old... lol
In all those scenarios, the employee had the right and the ability to say "no thanks, I'll go to another company that allows this". MLB players don't, they don't even get to pick their first team. It's really not a valid comparison. Players are left with "abide or go find a new career". So while DD told you what to wear, you could say "ok, I'll go work at the local indie coffee shop and probably make more, but very least the same money and wear what I want". The league actually has rules about uniforms, so there's not really a lot to go on there; once it gets passed through in a CBA, then sure, let's talk about it. Meantime it's a team policy. Have the Yankees been successful? Of course, but $$$ has a tad to do with that and there's not really an argument that suggests "no facial or long hair" in anyway helps the team. I'd say to each their own there, but apparently it isn't ;)
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,736
To be clear, for me this isn't a case like the Redskins where the league should step in and make them change the name/policy, but the policy is pointless and antiquated at a minimum and I would be happy as a Yankee fan if it was gone (and I really wish my more passionate rant from 2012 was still somewhere on this site but I don't think it is).
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
In all those scenarios, the employee had the right and the ability to say "no thanks, I'll go to another company that allows this". MLB players don't, they don't even get to pick their first team. It's really not a valid comparison. Players are left with "abide or go find a new career". So while DD told you what to wear, you could say "ok, I'll go work at the local indie coffee shop and probably make more, but very least the same money and wear what I want". The league actually has rules about uniforms, so there's not really a lot to go on there; once it gets passed through in a CBA, then sure, let's talk about it. Meantime it's a team policy. Have the Yankees been successful? Of course, but $$$ has a tad to do with that and there's not really an argument that suggests "no facial or long hair" in anyway helps the team. I'd say to each their own there, but apparently it isn't ;)
Yes, and athletes know going into their careers there are going to be things they are going to have to do that are part of their careers whether they are fun or not. Sign autographs, shake hands, get accosted for photos at restaurants and the mall - even if you are a severe introvert or extremely private person. Play in a cold weather city, when you grew up in a balmy town with perfect weather where you've surfed all your life. Travel constantly, even if you hate airplanes, hotels, buses, and taxis. Live out of hotels in strange cities, even if you have a family. Share a locker room with a bunch of other humans when you are a germaphobe. Do tiring/repetitive interviews with PITA media personnel. Wear goofy retro uniforms/clown outfits (looking at you Chris Sale), and for some teams, yes, even how you handle your facial hair. I get the theoretical argument, but I'm not looking sideways at a team that wants their players to toe the appearance line to conform to a brand identity - even if it doesn't impact on the field performance. If a team wants to be like Mark Cuban's NBA team and make themselves the destination city for players by providing amenities, creature comforts and complete individual expression, and another team wants to be rigid about appearance for marketing reasons or even simply dumb reasons, that's fine by me. Let teams do their own thing as corporations as it pertains to employee appearance standards. If you are a fan of the team and you want them to change policies for any number of a million reasons... lobby away. I just don't see it for me and it certainly doesn't feel draconian in any way.

As to whether these facial hair policies helps the team or not, you'd have to ask psychologists whether conforming to the identity of the umbrella organization/ greater effort adds value or not. Hockey players conform to tradition to add facial hair - in spite of some finding beards intolerable because of itching. Teams wear goofy team shirts to create unity and bond ("Why not us?"). They have road trips where they voluntarily isolate themselves in search of a team identity ("Ubuntu") they can rally around. As mentioned above, the military shaves the head of incoming meat soldiers to set a tone, to psychologically unite them. I'm not saying all those things are useless... or that being clean shaven is a rallying cry, but I also wouldn't say the Yankees are wrong in their approach. Short of missing out on Samson as a free agent, who knows what real impact it has had. And as Adam Dunn said, it grows back... usually.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
6,412
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
Not fully knowing the Yankees policy but the military has strict grooming standards as well but exceptions are made for medical and religious purposes. Exceptions in the military are granted for Sikhs, Norse Pagans, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, etc. Would a Rastafarian be able to play for the Yankees and still be allowed to adhere to his religious tenets?
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
6,988
Pasadena, CA
Not fully knowing the Yankees policy but the military has strict grooming standards as well but exceptions are made for medical and religious purposes. Exceptions in the military are granted for Sikhs, Norse Pagans, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, etc. Would a Rastafarian be able to play for the Yankees and still be allowed to adhere to his religious tenets?
You're the lawyer right? I'm guessing the policy would fall pretty quick to any legal challenge, no?
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
6,412
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
You're the lawyer right? I'm guessing the policy would fall pretty quick to any legal challenge, no?
It’s SoSH. Half the people here are lawyers.

The Army lost pretty badly in federal court regarding Soldiers attempting to serve with hair/beards to accommodate religious practices. Not a sufficient compelling interest. Women can serve with long hair (so there is no headgear issue that holds water). And arguing that you can’t get a good seal on a gas mask is also a bit ridiculous considering masks are available to accommodate beards and most special forces operators in deployed environments operate under relaxed grooming standards (i.e., beards are allowed). So claiming that the Army needs clean shaven soldiers for safety purposes is also a fruitless claim. I don’t practice civil law but I’m guessing the right person could successfully challenge the Yankees grooming policy.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, and athletes know going into their careers there are going to be things they are going to have to do that are part of their careers whether they are fun or not. Sign autographs, shake hands, get accosted for photos at restaurants and the mall - even if you are a severe introvert or extremely private person. Play in a cold weather city, when you grew up in a balmy town with perfect weather where you've surfed all your life. Travel constantly, even if you hate airplanes, hotels, buses, and taxis. Live out of hotels in strange cities, even if you have a family. Share a locker room with a bunch of other humans when you are a germaphobe. Do tiring/repetitive interviews with PITA media personnel. Wear goofy retro uniforms/clown outfits (looking at you Chris Sale), and for some teams, yes, even how you handle your facial hair. I get the theoretical argument, but I'm not looking sideways at a team that wants their players to toe the appearance line to conform to a brand identity - even if it doesn't impact on the field performance. If a team wants to be like Mark Cuban's NBA team and make themselves the destination city for players by providing amenities, creature comforts and complete individual expression, and another team wants to be rigid about appearance for marketing reasons or even simply dumb reasons, that's fine by me. Let teams do their own thing as corporations as it pertains to employee appearance standards. If you are a fan of the team and you want them to change policies for any number of a million reasons... lobby away. I just don't see it for me and it certainly doesn't feel draconian in any way.

As to whether these facial hair policies helps the team or not, you'd have to ask psychologists whether conforming to the identity of the umbrella organization/ greater effort adds value or not. Hockey players conform to tradition to add facial hair - in spite of some finding beards intolerable because of itching. Teams wear goofy team shirts to create unity and bond ("Why not us?"). They have road trips where they voluntarily isolate themselves in search of a team identity ("Ubuntu") they can rally around. As mentioned above, the military shaves the head of incoming meat soldiers to set a tone, to psychologically unite them. I'm not saying all those things are useless... or that being clean shaven is a rallying cry, but I also wouldn't say the Yankees are wrong in their approach. Short of missing out on Samson as a free agent, who knows what real impact it has had. And as Adam Dunn said, it grows back... usually.
So flip it around, go even further than the military (which I'm having trouble discerning if you get why they do that; crossing out "meat" then using "unite" seems contradictory, but whatever, I'm not sure either way we should be comparing them to baseball players), what if John Henry decided all players on the Sox had to be shaven bald, with a razor, not just clippers, Mr Clean style? That's a reasonable stance?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
So flip it around, go even further than the military (which I'm having trouble discerning if you get why they do that; crossing out "meat" then using "unite" seems contradictory, but whatever, I'm not sure either way we should be comparing them to baseball players), what if John Henry decided all players on the Sox had to be shaven bald, with a razor, not just clippers, Mr Clean style? That's a reasonable stance?
a) It was meant to be irreverent, as the military does seem (from this outsiders view) to grind all the incoming recruits down to a consistent pulpy mess before building them back up in a united/consistent/reliable structure. I'm not sure why that seems contradictory.
b) Only comparing them to the extent of any psychological value of everyone being symbolically united in their pursuit of the goal of the group versus their own identity.
c) You are contrasting polar opposite directions, one direction (clean shaven, short hair) was what the main stream was at the time the edict was originally in place. Asking players to conform to main stream "professional" appearance doesn't seem particularly egregious - though as I've allowed, perhaps antiquated to some. To others (perhaps the players themselves) it is a bigger ask. I accept that. Requiring players to adopt an appearance that is contrary to common or mainstream appearance is quite a bit more of an ask in my opinion. Still, if John Henry decided that all players needed to dress in pink polo shirts, and grow their hair out in ponytails in a jealous riff on "Mary Lou's" coffee shops as part of his corporate identity, is that much different than Al Davis deciding that cultivating the tough biker mentality/look was good for the brand/identity of his franchise? How is either (or a Mr. Clean) approach to marketing and identity not merely a business decision? It doesn't change things too much either way - only that they are effectively able to convey what they wish to their customers, and that their customers buy in. Again, we're talking about employees/athletes who know there are both positives and negatives to the pursuit of their careers. If something like a shave and a haircut is a major issue to them (when competitor PED usage for example represents a real barrier to their career success), then I wish them luck in their alternative pursuits. I'm guessing the NYY will be able to find athletes to back fill those slots.

I feel like I'm repeating myself again... sorry folks.
 
Last edited:

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,736
Not fully knowing the Yankees policy but the military has strict grooming standards as well but exceptions are made for medical and religious purposes. Exceptions in the military are granted for Sikhs, Norse Pagans, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, etc. Would a Rastafarian be able to play for the Yankees and still be allowed to adhere to his religious tenets?
Has there ever been a Rastafarian in MLB on any team? I found this list of 4 MLB players alltime from Jamaica, and one of those four is Justin Masterson. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Jamaica
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
6,412
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
Has there ever been a Rastafarian in MLB on any team? I found this list of 4 MLB players alltime from Jamaica, and one of those four is Justin Masterson. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Jamaica
Sure. Just takes one person who has standing. Bona fide religious belief is all it takes. The transition could happen moments before joining the Yankees. I bring it up because the military is currently dealing with an influx of individuals exclaiming to be Norse Pagans and requesting exemptions to grow beards.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Too bad he didn't speak up when he was playing there.

In 2007 we went to a Spring Training game and were in the family section behind home plate. Sat next to Drew's grandfather, fascinating man who told us that his grandson was going to be an All Star very soon. This was after only his 2nd minor league season, which had been in A and AA. Have rooted for him ever since.
I went on a baseball tour with my dad and some friends around 2006, and saw him in Altoona. We still have the scorecards somewhere, but if I remember right he went 2/4 with a big RBI double (and I think one of the outs was a flyball to the fence), and then made a diving catch coming in to take away a hit on a sinking liner in the late innings to help the bullpen preserve the lead. We had never heard of him, and none of us are scouts or anything, just knowledgable fans: but his talent was so obvious, he was clearly the best player on the field by a wide margin.

We nicknamed him McClutchen. We looked it up when we got back to internet, and were not surprised to read he was a top-20 prospect or whatever his ranking was.

I have also rooted for him ever since.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
I am WAY out of my league here and someone please tell me if I'm off base, but I'm sure I read something along these lines because African-Americans are far more prone to skin irritation and ingrown hairs if they shave every day. I could be completely full of shit on this, but if I'm not this strikes me as a compelling reason to get rid of the facial hair policy.
Dermatologists advise Black, North African, and Middle Eastern people to wear beards for precisely this reason. They don't even need to keep the beard, but just to grow a full beard occasionally to let any ingrown hairs that have developed work themselves out.

It's called pseudofolliculitis barbae.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
I haven’t done the math, but if you did, I think you’d find that a ban on facial hair disproportionately impacts black players. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily racist, but it’s fair to expect a better reason for the policy than “the convicted felon who used to own the team liked it that way.” The MLBPA ought to file a grievance.
I grew up in NH and have lived in the south for more than half my life. Some of you northerners (I hate being called a yankee down here or anywhere) need to come down here in the south. The blacks and whites get along great.