scott’s spot

History Lesson:

In 94, the baseball players union decided that, to fight against a salary cap being demanded by the owners, a strike was needed. This action was designed to be a financial hit to the owners, which it was, with the strike lasting 234 days and cancelling the post season. The strike ended when a federal judge ordered an injunction against the owners, barring them from using replacement players.

Question:

Given history, and how much the strike hurt baseball’s reputation, not to mention the pocketbooks of the owners, how have we now, 14 years later, landed in a place where baseball currently brings in so much frickin’ money? In other words, what saved baseball?

The reason I ask is because I was driving home today listening to the Mike Felger show on 890 ESPN. He made a claim that may or may not be true. He said, in typically bold attention-getting-by-way-of-controversial-statement-Mike-Felger-way, that steroids saved baseball.

That’s right.

Steroids.

Those little nasties that has had everyone in the press, maybe the public fanbase, but most certainly senators and congressmen (and women) seemed to have dubbed a threat on par with national security. (After all, why else would we have congressional hearings on such a stirring topic if it were not so important as to take up our country’s “leader’s” time and attention away from things like, oh, say, Iraq and Afghanstan and Bear Stearns and healthcare and…but I digress.)

Felger claims that the so-called “Steroid Era” in baseball has actually saved the sport by getting the average channel surfing fan to tune into more broadcasts and attend more games simply because of the possibility of a home run or five.

I listened to this as much as I could before I reached my destination and got out of my car. It’s an interesting premise, and who’s to say he’s wrong? Steroids have certainly lent a certain advantage to “some” players and has given them the ability to swing–and hit–the fences.

But it’s hard to say that steroids single-handedly saved baseball, since a lot of the guys using are guys who were otherwise toward the bottom of the talent food chain in the first place (hello Ryan Franklin and Jason Grimsley).

Another consideration that was floated was the era of new stadiums in baseball. Beginning with the construction of Oriole Park at Camden Yards, interest in baseball continued to rise and newer and glitzier stadiums continued to be built. From Safeco Field to the Jake to Minute Maid Park (which has a train running through it, for gods sakes). Stadiums became more and more like theme parks, and ticket prices rose accordingly. Even venerable old Fenway Park got in on the action, putting seats on top of the Green Monster and charging an arm and a leg for them.

But what I didn’t hear in all of this was any reference to what–or I should instead say “who”–I believe saved baseball. At least, if he did not do it all by himself, he bootstrapped baseball back to some place honorable and the sport has taken over from there.

That “who” would be Cal Ripken.

I’m a Maryland boy. I grew up listening to the games on the radio and hearing the calls as Cal played at short. At the time of the strike, Cal was well on his way to breaking Gehrig’s record. Peter Angelos, owner of the O’s, made a point of not hiring scrubs during the strike so that Cal’s streak could remain intact. When baseball resumed, Cal resumed, and plugged along until…well, the rest became history.

Ripken was considered one of the more honorable men in baseball. A hard working player, who never accepted failure in himself, and a genuinely nice individual. In this age of entitlement, there aren’t enough of those around.

I can’t argue that home run sluggers haven’t vaulted baseball players and owners into tax brackets I can only dream about, but I can say, with a fair amount of certainty that the steroid sluggers didn’t “save” baseball. They made it a lot of money. Baseball’s savior came in the form of a soft-spoke 6 foot 4 inch shortstop nicknamed the “Iron Man”.