The last decade has seen an upswing in interest and adoption of reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, in large part due to its demonstrated capabilities at performing certain tasks at "super-human levels". This has incentivized the community to prioritize research that demonstrates RL agent performance, often at the expense of research aimed at understanding their learning dynamics. Performance-focused research runs the risk of overfitting on academic benchmarks -- thereby rendering them less useful -- which can make it difficult to transfer proposed techniques to novel problems. Further, it implicitly diminishes work that does not push the performance-frontier, but aims at improving our understanding of these techniques. This paper argues two points: (i) RL research should stop focusing solely on demonstrating agent capabilities, and focus more on advancing the science and understanding of reinforcement learning; and (ii) we need to be more precise on how our benchmarks map to the underlying mathematical formalisms. We use the popular Arcade Learning Environment (ALE; Bellemare et al., 2013) as an example of a benchmark that, despite being increasingly considered "saturated", can be effectively used for developing this understanding, and facilitating the deployment of RL techniques in impactful real-world problems.