A hundred years of baseball history, flushed by greed--and all it took was about ten years to do it.
Maybe it's in my make-up, or my compulsion to understand the past, but I've always been one of those that treasured the long history of baseball: the "primitive" era before 1900, the "dead-ball" era until 1920, the "Ruthian era" of the twenties, the inflated-stats era of the thirties--every 10-20 years of baseball has its own panache; its own identity.
Except this last one: the "post-strike era." Those years since 1993 have nearly ruined Big League baseball for me, and the sad thing is, that I saw it coming.
Was it any coincidence that in the year of the impending strike, that homers were being hit at near-record paces? That following the strike, McGuire and Sosa destroyed the most hallowed record in sport? That Bonds followed on their heels, further raising the bar? That the baseballs themselves had begun to be manufactured in a different nation?
No.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, my theories about J. Edgar Hoover aside. But I CANNOT believe that all of the above was a coincidence. And there IS a central point, a linch-pin, that explains it: GREED.
Owners wanted more homers, more offense; players wanted more money and glory. So when players began to use steroids--and I was one of the few who utterly believed Canseco's accusations, which, by the way, are turning out to likely be true--and the homers leapt up (Brady Anderson hit FIFTY (!) as a lead-off man one year) they all turned their heads, counted the cash, and proclaimed that "baseball was back."
Right. The whole time, I just was about sick. Sick that the records of Ruth and Maris--honest, non-supplement and 'roid using men--were obliterated. Sick that other records--Gehrig's AL RBI mark, Ruth's slugging percentage--were nearly eclipsed. Sick that people were celebrating this as a great thing; as being good for baseball.
They are now being proved wrong. Baseball is in one helluva' mess; a mess I am not trying to revel in, though it is difficult not to. Some may say "Oh grow up--Ruth couldn't carry Bonds' jock," or "Get outta' the past, bud!"
But a large part of baseball's appeal is the continuity OF its history--of the debates (Grove, Johnson, or Clemons? Ripken or Banks? Robinson, Schmidt, or Traynor?). Well, now the debate seems more likely to be, Human Growth Hormone or Stanozolol?
A hundred years of great baseball history--all down the drain. Well, as long as it made some people rich, I suppose most will say that it's okay....
Maybe it's in my make-up, or my compulsion to understand the past, but I've always been one of those that treasured the long history of baseball: the "primitive" era before 1900, the "dead-ball" era until 1920, the "Ruthian era" of the twenties, the inflated-stats era of the thirties--every 10-20 years of baseball has its own panache; its own identity.
Except this last one: the "post-strike era." Those years since 1993 have nearly ruined Big League baseball for me, and the sad thing is, that I saw it coming.
Was it any coincidence that in the year of the impending strike, that homers were being hit at near-record paces? That following the strike, McGuire and Sosa destroyed the most hallowed record in sport? That Bonds followed on their heels, further raising the bar? That the baseballs themselves had begun to be manufactured in a different nation?
No.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, my theories about J. Edgar Hoover aside. But I CANNOT believe that all of the above was a coincidence. And there IS a central point, a linch-pin, that explains it: GREED.
Owners wanted more homers, more offense; players wanted more money and glory. So when players began to use steroids--and I was one of the few who utterly believed Canseco's accusations, which, by the way, are turning out to likely be true--and the homers leapt up (Brady Anderson hit FIFTY (!) as a lead-off man one year) they all turned their heads, counted the cash, and proclaimed that "baseball was back."
Right. The whole time, I just was about sick. Sick that the records of Ruth and Maris--honest, non-supplement and 'roid using men--were obliterated. Sick that other records--Gehrig's AL RBI mark, Ruth's slugging percentage--were nearly eclipsed. Sick that people were celebrating this as a great thing; as being good for baseball.
They are now being proved wrong. Baseball is in one helluva' mess; a mess I am not trying to revel in, though it is difficult not to. Some may say "Oh grow up--Ruth couldn't carry Bonds' jock," or "Get outta' the past, bud!"
But a large part of baseball's appeal is the continuity OF its history--of the debates (Grove, Johnson, or Clemons? Ripken or Banks? Robinson, Schmidt, or Traynor?). Well, now the debate seems more likely to be, Human Growth Hormone or Stanozolol?
A hundred years of great baseball history--all down the drain. Well, as long as it made some people rich, I suppose most will say that it's okay....
posted by I. Michael Koontz | 1:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home