Baseball Belongs to the People

In the past, baseball players were students of the game, they could talk about elder players and the way these guys played the game and how they emulated so and so for his base stealing moxy and so and so for the way he approached the outfield. Even further, guys knew a little a bit about the team they were going to, not just what they did the last few years or what the city media has referred them to. This wasn't really something that anybody talked about then because the media wasn't such a factor back then. It was solely to show appreciation for the game.

As a die hard Brewers fan, I'm not going to lie, I was a little disappointed to see that some of the young guys didn't understand how big it was for this city to see a winning season. To them it wasn't a milestone, and to be honest it isn't a milestone in my book either, but it's a moment I'm truly proud of, and I'm only 23 for crying out loud. But the question remains: Were these guys not impressed because the media shoved it down their throat the whole season or because they expected more or because they honestly could care less about the past? There's no real way to know, but we sure can speculate (that is our job as fans isn't it?).

Disclaimer: This is my own opinion and it's fluctuating especially because I haven't thoroughly thought this post all of the way through. The older I get, the more similarities I recognize between this era of players and the last, but at the same time I see more differences, so ultimately my mind will always be changing, so be prepared for some scatter brained organizational skills. I would like to hear all of your opinions on baseball as a business and players view of history before I'm through. It's a very complex topic that deserves discussion.

The past decade of baseball has brought in a new era of players and a different way to play the game as well. From media coverage to free agency and big contracts, it seems like very few men are playing the game just to play it anymore. There doesn't seem to be many Tony Gwynn's, Cal Ripken's, Rod Carew's, or Willie Mays' left in the game. And maybe that's because our media coverage is so obsessed with dugout tensions, the Yankees and the Red Sox, leaving these kind of guys out of the limelight. In my personal opinion guys like Alex Rodriguez would have been those blue collar players who worked hard and understood the history of baseball and played the game to pay tribute to this history. Instead they take an arrogant and selfish stance because they're making an unnecessary amount of money, but they still work hard. As a result baseball has officially become just a business. As a fan, I concede that, but it sure is a disappointment.

Baseball has always been a game that belonged to the people, whether it was the kids in small towns or the factory workers who got together after a long day to play a few innings. When it began to get more organized, people from all around came and in less than 20 years in the US it turned into a craze. It's held on since the 1890s (I think, it's been a while since I've brushed up on my baseball history) and many of those years were spent perfecting it, new balls, bats and most importantly players. But the game hasn't changed much with the exception of the Colorado humidor and the players for some time now, and therefore we can account this change directly to the new players of baseball's new era.

Should a player ultimately research the game of baseball and understand the history of his organization? Most of the time players don't have to do it because the second they show up they're either like Rob Deer or Brooks Kieschnick (That's right Brooks Kieschnick!) and the media is going to let them know it by shoving it down their throat constantly. But ultimately, I think they should know something about the organization beforehand; who their best players were, who the icons were and why they became such, and most importantly how what kind of baseball is appreciated in your new city. That my not always be the way you play the game, but knowing that is beneficial for both the fans and players. Why? It gives people a feeling of nostalgia and a ultimately a sense of connection to their players because they understand. In a way, it's giving part of baseball back to the people, and we need to hear that. We need to see the players on the field have a passion for baseball that's comparable to ours. They too are fans of the game, and they need to show it more.

Instead, we see players complaining that they're being compared too much to the people of the past, and while I agree with this assessment because the media is garbage, players need to be more susceptible to comparisons, especially Brewers players. I'm not one to hang on to the past, but I understand something, if your team sucks, you hang on to the last thing you remember that was really good and in Milwaukee that's 1982. The 2006 Brewers started the turnaround (sort of, I would say Doug Melvin did in 2002), and the suggestion of another 1982 is putting fans in the seats. Hell, they still do this thing at Packer games, bringing back Fuzzy Thurston and Bart Starr every other game.

Nostalgia is a good thing, and as a player don't let it bog you down, let it motivate you or at least look up the guy and say something like, "He was a hell of a player, and I can only hope to be so successful," not, "I'm not him." Be proud of the comparison, live up to it and enjoy the sport you're playing. Make your own name for yourself, so that in 15 years, they'll be having throwback night for you even if your numbers weren't spectacular, but you made your city remember what baseball is all about again.