Is harsh criticism of professionals a baseball tradition? From historic theater reviews to online harassment, here is why criticizing the work differs from attacking the person.
“They get paid to take criticism.” Fans say it when a baseball player makes an error, and viewers say it when a YouTuber posts a disappointing video. But paying someone to entertain you has never meant buying unlimited access to their dignity.
The key distinction is between evaluating public work and targeting the human behind it. There is no reliable proof that baseball invented the idea that professionals must accept every insult.
Critics existed long before professional baseball
In Edo-period Japan, books called Yakusha Hyoban-ki ranked and reviewed kabuki actors. According to Japan's Cultural Digital Library, precursor books commenting on performers' appearances appeared around 1656. By 1699, an established format discussed acting skill and popularity in Edo, Kyoto, and Osaka.[1]
Think of it as an early printed review culture. Audiences had opinions long before modern ballparks. That historical fact does not establish that today’s abusive comments descend directly from kabuki. Nor does judging acting give a stranger permission to degrade an actor as a person.
“That play was bad” is different from “disappear”
“The pitching change came too late.” “That throw cost the team a run.” “The video takes three minutes to get started.” These remarks identify a decision or a piece of work. They may be mistaken or blunt, but other people can debate them.
“You're worthless. Get off the internet.” What should the player or creator fix after reading that? The message offers no critique of the performance. It is a demand for the person to go away. The price of a ticket buys a seat, not a personal-insult subscription.
Thousands of little comments can land on one screen
On social media, each critic may feel responsible for just one remark. For a targeted player, remarks from many separate accounts can arrive in one relentless stream. A hypothetical hundred people writing one insult each produces a hundred notifications. That illustrates the mechanism, not an average abuse figure.
There are concrete measurements too. World Athletics monitored public accounts associated with 1,917 athletes and officials during the Paris 2024 Olympics and verified 809 abusive posts and comments.[3] The number refers to messages, not 809 athletes retiring. Being excellent at a sport does not imply being excellent at absorbing humiliation. Imagine selecting a shortstop for reflexes, then deciding who survives by a comment-section endurance contest.
The sport itself draws a line. Japan's NPB announced a monitoring system for malicious social-media attacks on umpires on July 1, 2026. It valued fan conversation while explicitly rejecting threats and personal attacks.[2] Disagreeing with a call and harassing the umpire are not the same activity.
Drive a YouTuber away, then complain there is nothing to watch
Google researchers surveyed 135 online creators for a study published in 2022. Some reported censoring their own work or leaving platforms because of online hate and harassment.[4] That is evidence that these attacks can influence creative choices; it is not a retirement rate for every YouTuber.
Creators also stop for financial reasons, health, family commitments, or new ambitions. Not every farewell video has the same cause. But imagine an audience spending months yelling “go away,” then complaining after the creator leaves that YouTube is boring. It is like telling your favorite restaurant to close every day and then being annoyed that the neighborhood has no good restaurants left.
Keep the criticism. Stop treating disappearance as a goal.
Before posting, ask whether your comment identifies the play, decision, or video segment you dislike. A tough review can start a useful argument. A message designed only to humiliate someone cannot. YouTube's harassment rules likewise restrict threats, repeated personal insults, and exposure of private information.[5]
Professionals are accountable for their work; viewers are accountable for their words. If the crowd drives every talented person away, who plays shortstop in the next game and edits the next video? The comment section?
