Mattingly
06-06-2006, 03:19 PM
It seems like an interesting article, appears to be well-researched, so I figured I'd ask the various fans of the historical game of baseball, when did Baseball's Modern Era begin?
Drawing the line at 1969 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2471349)
In 1900, there was no such thing as air conditioners, movies, corn flakes or bubble gum. But somehow, in baseball, we consider 1900 to be part of the "modern" era.
You couldn't listen to a game on a radio in 1900, let alone watch one on DirecTV. And you couldn't buy a Model T to drive to a game, so you sure as heck couldn't fly across country to play in one. But in baseball, those were "modern" times.
Well, here in this corner of ESPN.com, we may not be quite as futuristic as, say, Steve Jobs. Or even M Night Shyamalan. But we think we know the difference between modern and ancient.
So how can we not wonder: What's up with that?
Just a week ago, we examined the most romantic records in baseball. And we asked you, our loyal readers, about this very question: How the heck can baseball consider anything that happened in 1900 to be a "modern" record?
Nearly 500 e-mails later, you people have spoken. Or written, anyway.
Many of you agree with us -- that it's time to revise the record book's definition of "modern." Some of you -- possibly the ones who are still walking around in 20-year-old sports jackets -- think we're nutcases for even suggesting anything that sacrilegious.
Well, we've considered all the arguments. Now it's time to present our case.
Drawing the line at 1969 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2471349)
In 1900, there was no such thing as air conditioners, movies, corn flakes or bubble gum. But somehow, in baseball, we consider 1900 to be part of the "modern" era.
You couldn't listen to a game on a radio in 1900, let alone watch one on DirecTV. And you couldn't buy a Model T to drive to a game, so you sure as heck couldn't fly across country to play in one. But in baseball, those were "modern" times.
Well, here in this corner of ESPN.com, we may not be quite as futuristic as, say, Steve Jobs. Or even M Night Shyamalan. But we think we know the difference between modern and ancient.
So how can we not wonder: What's up with that?
Just a week ago, we examined the most romantic records in baseball. And we asked you, our loyal readers, about this very question: How the heck can baseball consider anything that happened in 1900 to be a "modern" record?
Nearly 500 e-mails later, you people have spoken. Or written, anyway.
Many of you agree with us -- that it's time to revise the record book's definition of "modern." Some of you -- possibly the ones who are still walking around in 20-year-old sports jackets -- think we're nutcases for even suggesting anything that sacrilegious.
Well, we've considered all the arguments. Now it's time to present our case.