The phrase “stick to sports’’ has become a common social-media refrain, one aimed by scattered members of the audience at sportswriters and media personalities who dare tread outside the white lines of the playing field to comment on larger matters, such as — go figure — politics.

To a degree, the reaction is understandable. Sports are supposed to offer escapism from the harsher realities of the world, and sometimes — most times — fans find annoyance in unexpectedly running headlong into a favorite beat reporter’s take on the presidential election when all they wanted was some fresh information on the American League MVP race.

Of course, “stick to sports’’ is used most often when the media personality’s opinion resides in a zip code a great distance away from what the reader himself (or herself) believes. Stick to sports, translated, tends to mean: I disagree with you, and I get enough of that in my real life. Can we just talk baseball again and get away from all of this for a moment?

Personally, I get it. Though as someone who sometimes gets overzealous on Twitter with opinions from outside the sports realm, I’ve found it cathartic to respond to every dismissive “stick to sports’’ demand with a reply that includes nothing but a vintage NBA box score.

In the aftermath of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory Nov. 8, it has been fascinating to see which outlets and personalities stick to sports and whether certain policies are put in place regarding what employees can and can’t discuss.

Sports Illustrated media writer Richard Deitsch revealed a few days ago USA Today management had delivered an edict to staffers — including employees of The Big Lead and For The Win websites — that they were not allowed to share their political views on social media, even on personal accounts.

That’s a contrast to how, say, Turner’s “Inside The NBA’’ handled the post-election discussion last Thursday. Not only was there candid and prolonged discussion among panelists Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Shaquille O’Neal about their feelings on Trump’s election, but anchor Ernie Johnson also invoked his own religious beliefs, emphasizing prayer, while acknowledging that he voted for John Kasich.

The whole discussion lasted more than 10 minutes, an extraordinary length of time for a basketball studio program to go off-topic. But it also served as a powerful reminder that the “Inside The NBA’’ cast has long been compelling and candid in discussing social matters, and clearly had built trust with Turner Sports management to discuss the election in a similar manner.

ESPN’s policy, which was put in place in January, basically amounts to this: Please don’t do what Curt Schilling did, OK? It’s actually fairly vague, reading in part:

“We should refrain from political editorializing, personal attacks or “drive-by’’ comments regarding the candidates and their campaigns (including but not limited to on platforms such as Twitter or other social media). Approved commentaries on sports-specific issues, or seeking responses from candidates on relevant news issues, are appropriate. However perceived endorsements should be avoided. (In others cases, guidelines, acceptable commentary and political advocacy should prevail).’’

It was with ESPN’s policy in mind that I asked Jeff Van Gundy, who will be on the call of Friday night’s Warriors-Celtics game on ESPN (it also airs locally on CSN) whether he would comment on the election.

“Honestly, I don’t know,’’ said Van Gundy. “ESPN, I don’t think they’re really big on certain talk. I see some tweets by some people and I don’t think anybody gets in trouble. But I thought it was very interesting what Gregg Popovich said [Thursday]. He was asked if he was given permission by his owner [to speak out against Trump’s election], and he said, ‘No, being an American gives me permission.’ I thought that was a heck of a response.’’

Van Gundy has been outspoken about social issues in the past — just last month, he suggested NBA players who are convicted of domestic violence charges should be banned for a full year. Candor is a family trait, perhaps. While Popovich and Warriors coach Steve Kerr both spoke last week about their disappointment in the outcome of the election, the first to do it was Stan Van Gundy, Jeff’s brother and the coach of the Detroit Pistons.

“What I appreciate about my brother is that he’s interested, invested, and studious about his position,’’ said Van Gundy. “I’ve never been prouder of him that he was the first guy to speak his mind. People can disagree with this or think whatever they want. But at least he had the fortitude to say what he believes.

“These owners do have a dilemma. I’m sure most of them encourage social awareness, but how much social awareness do you allow from your coaches and your management? And you have to contrast that to how much it might affect business. With the players, you really can’t. They have the right to say what they see fit. I’m interested to see if it persists.’’

Van Gundy didn’t stick to topics other than sports, telling Celtics fans who may be frustrated with the 6-5 start in a season of big expectations to have patience.

“That’s the story. People are like, ‘slow start.’ No, it’s not. No, it’s not,’’ he said. “What are they, 6-5? They’re not doing so bad for having two starters out. People act like that whole ‘next man up’ thing means that the next man up is as good as the guy he’s replacing. When you’re missing [Jae] Crowder and [Al] Horford, people say they’re struggling, and I say, ‘Are you watching?’ ’’

It should be enlightening to hear Van Gundy discuss the Celtics in deeper detail Friday night. Perhaps other matters as well, should he choose not to stick to . . . well, you know.

Chad Finn can be reached at finn@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeChadFinn.