"Modern"ity
Sep. 9th, 2020 07:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
primeidealContent note: US history/politics, sports nerdery
When did the modern era of major league/"organized" baseball begin? If I say "Joe Schmo has more triples than any player in the modern era," what do I mean?
The answer: it's unclear.
The National League--the same one that exists today, with franchises like the Chicago Cubs (then White Stockings) and Atlanta Braves (then in Boston)--came into being in 1876. For the next 25 years, there were other leagues going and coming. Chris von der Ahe started the "American Association," which became known as the "Beer and Whiskey League," because it sold alcohol in the games (!) and played on Sundays (!) unlike the puritanical NL; his team eventually became the St. Louis Cardinals, of the modern NL. Sometimes these leagues' winners played unofficial post-season exhibitions against each other. There were also the short-lived Union Association and Players' League. In 1901, Ban Johnson renamed the "Western League" to the "American League," and declared that it was a full-fledged major league. That includes franchises that exist today, like the Detroit Tigers and the Boston team (now the Red Sox). The National League went "nah nah we're not listening" for two years; finally, in 1903, they agreed to be co-major leagues, have a World Series between each league's champion at the end of the season, and it's been mostly-smooth sailing ever since.
So, a common answer to the question is "1901, when the American League that we know and love arose." If you are interested in comparing statistics, it's reasonable not want to go too much earlier. For instance, in 1887 in the NL, walks were counted as hits, so batting averages were very high. Throughout the 1880s, both the NL and the AA kept changing their mind as to how many balls were required for a walk (five? six? seven? eight? they didn't settle on four until 1889). So even though baseball has a lot of statistical/team continuity, it makes sense to say "this era is modern, this isn't."
Except, you can also "move the goalposts" (mixing my metaphor) in the other direction. Before 1920, the balls were made out of substantially different material, and pitchers were allowed to use the spitball, making it much harder to hit. The "live ball" era, coinciding with Babe Ruth's statistical dominance, changed what mediocre/good/amazing stats were for pitchers and hitters alike. Maybe "modern" means that?
Or maybe "modern" means "post-1947"? 1947 was the year that Jackie Robinson debuted for the Dodgers; for the first half of the 1900s, white players were playing in a segregated league. We don't know what numbers Babe Ruth would have been capable of if he'd had to bat against the best black pitchers, or conversely, what numbers Josh Gibson could have put up if he'd gotten to bat against the best white pitchers. So maybe all the statistics before that aren't really meaningful? (When we want to acknowledge Robinson's forerunners in the AA, sometimes we'll say "Robinson was the first black player in the modern major leagues"--but that's assuming the post-1901 definition or some close equivalent.)
Or what about 1969, when the mound was lowered after a year of dominating pitching, and the leagues split into divisions with multiple rounds of playoffs? Or 1973, when the American League adopted the designated hitter? Depending on the point you want to make, any of these are reasonable criteria for statistical comparisons. Modern baseball doesn't have one beginning; it has many. (And if you want to define the beginning of baseball in general, well, good luck.)
*awkward segue/pivot time* Sooo who cares?
If I were signing up for a class about the early history of the United States, there are several different focuses I could expect. The first indigenous people to arrive in the Western Hemisphere arrived tens of thousands of years ago (this has lots of error bars). There are lots and lots of diffuse cultures that emerged over thousands of years. European colonizers arrived in 1513 (Spain/Florida) and 1634 (France/Wisconsin) and 1614 (Netherlands/New York) and 1607 (England/Virginia). The Revolutionary War broke out at 1775 (Lexington and Concord); the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776; the Constitution was written in 1787 and took effect in 1788. 1865 saw the end of the Civil War, and some of the former Confederate states weren't readmitted until 1870. There have been 50 states since 1959, which you may consider a frivolous milestone, but considering that most of the country's history as an independent state has seen shorter time gaps between adding states than the 60+ year stable window we're in right now, this seems noteworthy. (If you're reading this in the future and DC or Puerto Rico are the 51st state, consider me pleasantly surprised!)
So maybe I'm naive, but I don't really think anyone has an unambiguous definition of "the real beginning of US history" any more than they have a concrete definition of "the modern beginning of baseball history." Which means finger-wagging about "nah nah, my curriculum is better than yours" is...more likely to be ideological signalling than pedagogy.
Now, the flip side is, is such academic signalling a part of my training requirements in the public sector? I can assure you it is not. The training slideshows I get are such classics as:
-sexual harassment: it's bad mkay
-do you have to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities? yes, yes you do
-only look at data you have the right to look at, please
-don't get involved in conflicts of interest
AKA, the same boring legalese you probably expect. If that changes, I'll let you know. But for now...there's nothing close to edgy deconstructionism going on from the HR department.
When did the modern era of major league/"organized" baseball begin? If I say "Joe Schmo has more triples than any player in the modern era," what do I mean?
The answer: it's unclear.
The National League--the same one that exists today, with franchises like the Chicago Cubs (then White Stockings) and Atlanta Braves (then in Boston)--came into being in 1876. For the next 25 years, there were other leagues going and coming. Chris von der Ahe started the "American Association," which became known as the "Beer and Whiskey League," because it sold alcohol in the games (!) and played on Sundays (!) unlike the puritanical NL; his team eventually became the St. Louis Cardinals, of the modern NL. Sometimes these leagues' winners played unofficial post-season exhibitions against each other. There were also the short-lived Union Association and Players' League. In 1901, Ban Johnson renamed the "Western League" to the "American League," and declared that it was a full-fledged major league. That includes franchises that exist today, like the Detroit Tigers and the Boston team (now the Red Sox). The National League went "nah nah we're not listening" for two years; finally, in 1903, they agreed to be co-major leagues, have a World Series between each league's champion at the end of the season, and it's been mostly-smooth sailing ever since.
So, a common answer to the question is "1901, when the American League that we know and love arose." If you are interested in comparing statistics, it's reasonable not want to go too much earlier. For instance, in 1887 in the NL, walks were counted as hits, so batting averages were very high. Throughout the 1880s, both the NL and the AA kept changing their mind as to how many balls were required for a walk (five? six? seven? eight? they didn't settle on four until 1889). So even though baseball has a lot of statistical/team continuity, it makes sense to say "this era is modern, this isn't."
Except, you can also "move the goalposts" (mixing my metaphor) in the other direction. Before 1920, the balls were made out of substantially different material, and pitchers were allowed to use the spitball, making it much harder to hit. The "live ball" era, coinciding with Babe Ruth's statistical dominance, changed what mediocre/good/amazing stats were for pitchers and hitters alike. Maybe "modern" means that?
Or maybe "modern" means "post-1947"? 1947 was the year that Jackie Robinson debuted for the Dodgers; for the first half of the 1900s, white players were playing in a segregated league. We don't know what numbers Babe Ruth would have been capable of if he'd had to bat against the best black pitchers, or conversely, what numbers Josh Gibson could have put up if he'd gotten to bat against the best white pitchers. So maybe all the statistics before that aren't really meaningful? (When we want to acknowledge Robinson's forerunners in the AA, sometimes we'll say "Robinson was the first black player in the modern major leagues"--but that's assuming the post-1901 definition or some close equivalent.)
Or what about 1969, when the mound was lowered after a year of dominating pitching, and the leagues split into divisions with multiple rounds of playoffs? Or 1973, when the American League adopted the designated hitter? Depending on the point you want to make, any of these are reasonable criteria for statistical comparisons. Modern baseball doesn't have one beginning; it has many. (And if you want to define the beginning of baseball in general, well, good luck.)
*awkward segue/pivot time* Sooo who cares?
If I were signing up for a class about the early history of the United States, there are several different focuses I could expect. The first indigenous people to arrive in the Western Hemisphere arrived tens of thousands of years ago (this has lots of error bars). There are lots and lots of diffuse cultures that emerged over thousands of years. European colonizers arrived in 1513 (Spain/Florida) and 1634 (France/Wisconsin) and 1614 (Netherlands/New York) and 1607 (England/Virginia). The Revolutionary War broke out at 1775 (Lexington and Concord); the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776; the Constitution was written in 1787 and took effect in 1788. 1865 saw the end of the Civil War, and some of the former Confederate states weren't readmitted until 1870. There have been 50 states since 1959, which you may consider a frivolous milestone, but considering that most of the country's history as an independent state has seen shorter time gaps between adding states than the 60+ year stable window we're in right now, this seems noteworthy. (If you're reading this in the future and DC or Puerto Rico are the 51st state, consider me pleasantly surprised!)
So maybe I'm naive, but I don't really think anyone has an unambiguous definition of "the real beginning of US history" any more than they have a concrete definition of "the modern beginning of baseball history." Which means finger-wagging about "nah nah, my curriculum is better than yours" is...more likely to be ideological signalling than pedagogy.
Now, the flip side is, is such academic signalling a part of my training requirements in the public sector? I can assure you it is not. The training slideshows I get are such classics as:
-sexual harassment: it's bad mkay
-do you have to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities? yes, yes you do
-only look at data you have the right to look at, please
-don't get involved in conflicts of interest
AKA, the same boring legalese you probably expect. If that changes, I'll let you know. But for now...there's nothing close to edgy deconstructionism going on from the HR department.
