Friday, January 02, 2009

Was the Past Really Better?


Or is the Fan just getting old? After doing a Google search, Bobby Murcer's name popped up in one of the results. The name is just one of those iconic names from a childhood filled with such icons. Growing up just seemed different then. Not really wanting to risk being portrayed as one of those fogies who turn off an entire generation with stories of walking four miles to school in the middle of winter, the question still begs to be asked: Was the past really better for baseball fans?

On the face of things, this is the best time ever to be a fan. With bloggers and sites all over the Web, one can easily spend the entire day reading about the game. Sites like mlb.com and http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ give you lifetime statistics for every player who ever played or the box scores of games in 1969 if one is interested. Yahoo sports has up to the minute box scores so there is no need to wait for the next day's papers. Baseball Tonight shows highlights of every game every night of the season. You couldn't ask for more, right?

So why does the past seem more romantic? In most markets, every game was televised, and even though we all had black and white televisions, it was wondrous and magical, even if your team was terrible. When you couldn't be home, you always carried a transistor radio with the nine volt batteries to listen to the same announcers and you could "see" the game and feel it even if you couldn't be there.

There were double headers on Sunday so you had six straight hours of baseball that didn't go past your bed time. Going to a big league game was not beyond most people's means, nor was getting hot dogs and soda once you go there. Playoff and World Series games were played during the day and teachers, at least the good teachers, would bring in this television on a cart (remember those?) and let the class watch.


We played baseball our entire childhood and practiced at least three days a week. And it was fun and something we wanted to do. When we weren't in organized ball, we made our own games up using dice and complicated pages of what each roll meant. Or, you saved your money and bought Strat-O-Matic and played 162 games. Plus there was stick ball, whiffle ball or stoop ball and a game called "Ground Ball to Short" where two people took turns playing first base and grounders or pop ups were thrown. Outs were recorded for successful plays and runs were scored if the Spalding Red Rubber Ball got past the other player. Nine innings would determine the winner.

The players were mostly regular joes before Curt Flood changed baseball (as it should have been changed). The players didn't make much more money than our dads and worked in shoe stores and the like during the off season. Fitness training wasn't big then like it is now and the players didn't look like polished sculptures.

And then there were baseball cards at a nickel a pack. A few packs were purchased each week and the list cards were faithfully recorded when you found that player in your pack. The cards were flipped or the doubles went in bicycle spokes.

Was it so different then? No good answer can come from this old Fan as he is not a part of the current generation. Bud Selig cannot be helping by starting playoff and World Series games so late every night. And the last time this Fan saw a pack of baseball cards, it was more than two dollars. Recently, MLB.com announced the beginning of MLB television. The story said the new cable channel was free. But after using the zip code finder, the finder said it was a subscription service. Does that mean less games to watch for the average fan?

Technology has long been viewed as a wonderful thing. And certainly life is much easier with microwave ovens. Getting up to the minute stats and analysis at the click of a mouse is really cool. But those days of living and dying by the transister radio sure are missed. Are things really better or worse for fans of baseball? If you have an opinion, leave a comment. If it turns out that the Fan has turned into a geezer...well...we'll just have to accept it.

No comments: