I applaud your employer in doing that. And from the tone of your response, I gather that you saw it an overall beneficial thing to do. The cynic can say, “It was a PR move by the company,” but let’s count a few ways that it was actually good business: A company’s biggest resource is often its staff. It seems that you and (and I’m guessing others) did some valuable reflecting.By virtually any account, stress level has been up in virtually all walks of life, and addressing mental health is a significant cost for many employers. They took a step to address mental health by giving the gift of a day off that probably didn’t cost them very much.They sent a message to a segment of their employees that they recognize that the challenges they face are real, further validating their appreciation for this group. The net of all these is that it likely contributed to a sense of well-being for the employees and to this being a desirable place to work. I draw some of these observations from my own situation. For several years, we’ve had MLK Day as a paid holiday. This year, they made it a required work day, but gave us an additional floating holiday in exchange (a net gain, since it gave us flexibility in when we take the day off). But instead of business as usual on MLK Day, we were closed for business and we spent the day in educational activities around systemic racism, including ways that systemic racism has been an issue in the industry we are a part of. And it’s made a difference. Since then, I’ve heard people from senior management to entry level ask about the ongoing decisions we make and whether they are ethical. I’ve heard differences in our thinking about hiring practices. I’ve seen us make better decisions about how we engage with markets that have typically been under-served. So now, the cynic says, “Well, they only did it to benefit themselves. They didn’t really care — they just wanted to make more money.” I think that’s a lame response as well. In both cases, it suggests that individual decisions are singularly motivated, when they are nearly always multifaceted. In this case, I think not playing was a good move on a lot of fronts. PR? Sure. But I think it’s also a good move in adding to the conversation, which is what the majority of players who’ve spoken have seemed to say is their primary goal in not playing. I’ve heard a lot of articulate statements from those involved. The one that stood out the most was Joe Girardi, who said something to the effect of, “I hope that there are kids who are asking their parents, ‘Why didn’t the Phillies play tonight?’ And I hope that there are parents taking those questions seriously and talking with their children about what’s happening in our world.” Players are recognizing that they are in position to encourage those conversations in ways that Indiana Twin and his friends on Twins Daily are not able to do. In my mind, that’s advancing the overall conversation, and it’s a responsible thing for them to do. Did it cost the players anything to reschedule a game? Who cares? Why do so many things need to be seen as a zero-sum game? Why does it only count as a “statement” if someone has made a “sacrifice”? Why was it only worth doing if dramatic changes happen as a result? And why do we as humans sometimes see it as our job to make sure that if someone hasn’t “sacrificed” enough in some other way (at least as judged by me), they at least sacrifice by receiving our scorn for something that they have done with good intentions?