Nostalgia: A Costly Feeling

As a young girl, baseball cards constantly surrounded me. With an older brother and a father who played and watched the game, I could never get away from the topic of baseball. I never understood the concept of baseball cards, why some of them became so costly. Though, I couldn’t really argue with my brother and father because at that time I was collecting beanie babies. But the day that my dad pulled out a Ted Williams baseball card he bought for my brother and told us it was worth a lot, I became perplexed. Finding out now it was worth 900 dollars, I am still confused. Looking at the card then, it was a card, a small rectangular piece of paperboard with a picture on it. How could it be worth so much?

Looking at it now, the same question still arises in my mind. The only conclusion that suffices is how the world we live in makes meaning out of material items. There is an actual value in a dollar bill, however, in baseball cards, we make value, hence the value is nothing more than fake, yes there is a price tag attached to a baseball card, but the card’s price is truly not what the actual piece of paperboard is worth.

            Take the Honus Wagner T-206 baseball card. Recently, in 2007, one of these baseball cards sold for 2.8 million dollars. Honus Wagner is known as one of the best shortstops that have ever played baseball (Venturo). Even if this is true, how can a piece of paperboard be worth 2.8 million dollars? This is due to the materialistic world we live in today. People make value in material items, a value that is not truly the value of the actual object; it is the value of the idea confined to it.

            David F. Venturo also talks about baseball and material culture in his essay, Baseball and material culture, where he discusses baseball and “how things are made, used, and valued (economically, morally, aesthetically, and culturally)” (138). Baseball memorabilia in our material world today can become costly when the sentimental value of the memorabilia is the reason it’s so expensive, not the cost of it being manufactured. For example, Mark McGwire’s record-setting seventieth home-run ball from his 1998 sold at an auction for more than 3 million dollars in 1999. Its obvious that this baseball did not cost 3 million dollars to make, therefore the baseball sold for 3 million dollars because it was Mark McGwire's record-setting seventieth home-run ball. 

            Andy Dolich delves into this subject of baseball memorabilia, specifically cards, in his article, Mourning the death of baseball cards. He talks first about how the popularity of baseball cards has been declining lately and the reasoning to this decline. He then discusses how baseball has the deepest and richest tradition of all sports, how even with all of the technological advances today, people still indulge and spend money on baseball cards. Dolich writes also of the Honus T Wagner card being sold recently, “The card was sold again that same year for $2.8 million” (Dolich).  A baseball card selling for 2.8 million dollars exemplifies how insane the power of nostalgia is on our society today. Doesn’t it seem ridiculous that our nostalgia for baseball can lead some people to spending 2.8 million dollars on a piece of paperboard?

           

A Changed Game?

For as long as baseball has been around, there have been writers reflecting on major league baseball games. It used to be that the way to find out about a baseball game was either to go watch the game or read about in the newspaper. Nowadays, there are numerous ways to learn of the result of a major league baseball game. Going and watching the game, reading about it in the newspaper, and now, the radio, television, and the Internet are all ways to access a baseball game. When the radio starting becoming popular and baseball games were starting to be announced on it, some baseball teams became aggravated. After the radio had been out for a little while, the New York Yankees, Giants, and Brooklyn Dodgers became aggravated that their games were being broadcasted and put a five-year ban on it. In Curt Smiths’, Baseball and mass media, he writes of Barber’s view on why they banned their games on the radio, “They’d thought radio would hurt attendance,” said Barber, “so they banned all coverage” (Smith, 225). Its obvious that yes, they were worried about fans attending less games and losing money due to this, but another worry that could have been felt by the players is how it could change the game of baseball.

Today, baseball games can be accessed through the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and Internet. Can this have an effect on the players and how the game is played because the ways to view a baseball game are multiplied? Also, can the results of a baseball game and the way it is explained be skewed when compared to the view of a person who was actually part of the audience at the baseball game? The media romanticizes a baseball game, broadcasters add drama to excite listeners, and in doing so, they could possibly change the way people think of baseball games. Broadcasters and writers can “change” what really happened in the game to something different and more interesting. Another change that came with radio coming about is that if fans could listen to a game, they would find no reason to read about it anymore, thus writers, having less of an audience. Smith expressed this view when he stated, “Such bile evinced fear of radio. Why read if you could hear for free? (Smith, 224).

These changes could affect writers such as The Associated Press Sports, in the result of their article being read called Rivera throws perfect inning in spring debut. In this article, The Associated Press Sports reports on how Yankees closer Mariano Rivera threw a perfect inning during his first spring training appearance of the year. If radios can broadcast this baseball game, less people will most likely read this article and read about the game in other articles and newspapers as well. Also, if writers discuss this game in on the Internet, and radios talk about this as well, less people will also actually go see the game. People should be able to view and listen to a discussion of baseball game in any way, be it the newspaper, radio, television, and internet but does this change the game of baseball from what it used to be? Does it change the game to fans, players and or baseball officials? Does it create and romanticize games more than if a person just went to see a baseball game?  It is true that fans will not make it to as many games now, but people should have the right to decide if they would like to go see a baseball game or hear about it another way. It’s interesting whether or not players feel that these electronics have changed the aura that is received by players from fans at major league baseball games. What do you think? If players do believe that these electronics do change the game of baseball for them, what is morally right, their right to the baseball game they want or the right of the fans to be able to watch the game without having to attend?

Are Fans Crossing the Line?

Every year as baseball spring training comes around, the public, fans, and baseball writers hear of an abundance of injuries occurring to players. In Bob Nightengale’s, Injury bug reaks havoc at spring training camps, he expresses how spring training is the time that you see most of the injuries happening in baseball players. Chicago White Sox coordinator Dale Torborg states in this article, “This is the time of year you see all of the injuries” (Injury bug reaks havoc at spring training camps. Nightengale reports some of the players that have injured themselves in spring training, one being the Oakland Athletics third baseman, Scott Sixemore who had knee surgery, another being the Cleveland Indians center fielder Grady Sizemore, who had back surgery, and the latter, the new Cincinnati Reds closer Ryan Madson, who has a sore arm now (Injury bug reaks havoc at spring training camps).

Obviously, all of these injuries occuring is a concern to the players themselves, and the public but what seems to be an underlying concern is how detailed the reports of players injuries are and how much the players seem to have to tell the public about their injuries. What happened to people being able to have some privacy in their life when it pertains to personal matters? In Al Filreis’ paper, The baseball fan, he expresses the view of Fred Stein who believes, “Baseball essentially is about the player” (Al Filreis). He is implying here that baseball has nothing to do with the fans, but if baseball has nothing to do with the spectatorship, and all to do with the players, then why do fans insist on knowing everything about a player’s life, especially, something as personal as injuries? It seems apparent to me that since a player is a person as well, fans should realize that they should be able to keep some parts of their lives to themselves. However, fans seem to believe that players on their team “owe” it to them to give details on their personal life, specifically injuries. When are fans crossing the line?

In The baseball fan, Al Filreis also touches on the love that Philip Roth feels in his novel, The Great American Novel, “Philip Roth similarly loved baseball as a young man not just “for the fun of playing it” but for its “mythic and aesthetic dimension” (Filreis, 135). Yes, many fans and players fall in love with the game of baseball, but is this love too obsessive? We all have a right to privacy in this world, especially on personal matters, the question I propose is, are fans crossing the line of a person’s right to privacy when they insist on knowing the details of the injuries of certain players? 

Will Ryan Braun Really Ever Be Innocent To The Public?

Recently, it has been discovered that Ryan Braun, the Milwaukee Brewers left fielder, could have been using steroids. Braun would have been facing a 50 game suspension if found guilty. Luckily for Braun, there was an error in the procedure of collecting his urine sample; Braun was found “innocent” not based on his negative drug test but by the mistake of the administrator, named Dino Laurenzi Jr. who went to a Fedex that was closed. Laurenzi was said to have kept it in his refrigerator for over 40 hours and then shipped it to a testing laboratory. This leaves a sufficient amount of time for someone to have tainted with Braun’s urine sample. (Brewer's Braun still trying to establish innocence). This leaves a lot of questions for the public, the fans, and many baseball writers. Is it immoral to allow a player who has been accused of using steroids to play without a suspension if he was found innocent based on an inconclusive drug test? Will people really view Braun as innocent? Will the fans view Braun differently because he was found innocent based on a procedural error in testing his urine sample? Why will they view him differently after this ordeal? 

            Baseball writers have addressed many of these questions. Bob Nightengale, in his article, Brewer’s Braun still trying to establish innocence, reports that a baseball official Rob Manfred, is appalled by the ruling the arbitrator gives Braun. The catcher of the Brewers, Jonathon Lucroy, expressed his concern on the question of whether people will view Braun differently, "Even though Braunie cleared this up, this will be attached to him the rest of his life. He'll be painted with a broad brush that he's a cheater. And that's sad (Brewer's Braun still trying to establish innocence)." Jonathon Lucroy is correct in the fact that people will view Braun differently; the reasoning to people viewing Braun differently goes back to the morality of baseball. Americans views baseball as the all American sport, it is romanticized and mythologized, it is held to higher standards than many other sports, and because of this Americans believe that major league baseball players cannot participate in anything immoral. So what would be one of the reasons people question and hold hatred toward Ryan Braun?

            In The Cambridge Companion to Baseball, David and Daniel Luban, discuss the issues of cheating in baseball. One of the reasons they believe people would view players differently that have been accused of using steroids like Ryan Braun is that if some players use steroids it will put unfair pressure on players that do not use steroids. “The real trouble is that once some players start muscling up and recovering more quickly, it pressures other players to join the arms race (and legs race, and chest race). That’s where the genuine worry about cheating comes in: users gain an unfair advantage over nonusers, and no player should be under pressure to become a user” (Luban and Luban, 191-2). Could this be one of the reasons the public view Braun differently from now on?

The Theo Epstein Ordeal

          

            About four months ago, the Boston Red Sox made a deal with the Chicago Cubs. The Chicago Cubs wanted to sign the Boston Red Sox, general manager, Theo Epstein, as their own. However, Theo Epstein’s contract with the Boston Red Sox was not up yet for another year. The Red Sox decided that the Chicago Cubs could have Epstein now if they worked out a deal. The deal would be that the Red Sox get a “significant compensation.” The definition of what their “significant compensation” is going to be is what has been stirring in the news lately. The Red Sox feel as if they are owed something for taking Theo Epstein when the contract was not up yet. The compensation that the Red Sox are supposed to be getting is a significant aggressive player.

            As mentioned before, this deal was made four months ago, and still no agreement has been made on what compensation the Red Sox will get for Theo Epstein.  Therefore, the Red Sox have still not been given their significant compensation because the Red Sox and Cubs cannot agree on what the Red Sox will get from them.

            The issue has been ongoing for so long now that the commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig has taken the issue into his own hands and will decide the resolution. In Rob Kelley’s article called, Boston Red Sox to Receive Significant Player From Chicago Cubs As Compensation For Theo Epstein?,he believes that the Red Sox were first gunning for starting pitcher Matt Garza for compensation. However, he believes that this is too much to ask for. Bud Selig might however, want to give the Red Sox a very significant player from the Cubs maybe so that teams know if they try this ordeal themselves they could lose a key player. This is the issue that arises with the decision Bud Selig has to make is that if he decides to give the Red Sox a good player then other teams will want to get general managers while their contracts are still going because they have a good chance of getting a greater player (Kelley).

            This ordeal happening between the Red Sox and Chicago Cubs is something new in baseball, a conflict that probably many scouts and baseball fanatics would be angry over years ago. This conflict is a way of “new thinking” while the scouts in Moneyball, are trapped in their ways of “old thinking.” This situation arising and as well as whatever decision is made is a step forward into letting different circumstances happen in baseball unlike the scouts in Moneyball, who want to leave everything in Baseball the way it has been forever. The scouts’ problem in Moneyball and in baseball is that the world changes, people change, but the scouts’ wont change what they perceive as the game.

The other problem that comes into play for scouts and “old time thinkers” of Baseball is the morality of baseball. Unlike any other sport, people hold baseball to a certain standard. If the Chicago Cubs can take the Boston Red Sox general manager before his contract is up by trading one of their players, what will happen next that has never happened before? Probably, many things like this will happen, and they should because the world changes and baseball can change even if scouts and old time thinkers believe it shouldn’t.