3 baseball games – 3 completely different experiences and thoughts beyond baseball

I don’t write on sports so this may be a little out of the normal; however, I could not help but share my recent completely different experiences from 3 “ball” games that I visited in July and August of this year.

The 1^st one was a big hyped up game where the legendary Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants was to equal the all time record for home runs while playing against the Atlanta Braves in his home stadium in Frisco. The 2^nd game was a game in Vancouver between Tier 2 rivals and the final game that I watched was Toronto Blue Jays Taking on the team from Baltimore. I am sharing what I realized from these 3 experiences:

* The most hyped game was the most boring. In terms of the game quality, the Tier 2 game in Vancouver was the most exciting with more strikes and home runs than the games I watched with major league players in Toronto or San Francisco. In fact the game in San Francisco was so boring that I was mostly admiring the beautiful view of the San Francisco “bay” beyond the boundaries of the stadium; even my baseball loving colleagues decided that we should abandon the game mid-way and head back to the hotel.

* The arena makes a real difference. The San Francisco game was played in a huge stadium and while people roared for Barry, the excitement of the huge open stadium was lost on me. On the other hand the closed atmosphere of the Rogers Centre was far more electrifying. But the small field at Vancouver created an atmosphere of intimacy that had me sitting all through the action.

* The side show is equally important for enjoyment, perhaps more than the game itself. When I checked the level of involvement of the crowds, I observed that the crowds cared a lot about the side-show. The “Chicken Man” with his pranks form the sidelines at Vancouver had the kids and even the elders in splits and completely riveted on his antics. The mascot, the dancing and the prancing at the Blue Jays game drew more cheers than any catch or strike made by the players. The ceremonies at the San Francisco Game were the only times that our group stopped “jabbering” amongst ourselves or I stopped looking at the Bay.

* Spectator sports at the stadium is a family event in North America. Be it in the UK, Latin America, Singapore or in India, the folks who attended games were die hard fans, mostly going individually or with groups of friends (and some as corporate guests). I didn’t observe too many mixed age groups or families going together to the stadium to watch cricket, football or similar events. However in the US and Canada, families (or atleast father-child or mom and child) go together on a regular basis. In the words of a friend of mine, “In some instances, it is something that generations can share and follow together, it gives a great opportunity for enjoyment and togetherness with friends or family, a common following or bond, not so far derived from following a similar religion.”

* Sports discussion as ice breakers and substitute for tougher alternatives. Weather and hockey are “ice breakers” for conversation at any official meeting in Canada. Talk about baseball, golf, football (the American version) are an easy way to get conversations into a swing anywhere on the continent as is discussion on the previous day’s football and cricket games in other parts of the world. People can release their energies, debate and obsess as much as they like about the game and the players without doing significant long lasting damage (in most cases) to most relationships and their social circles unlike conversations on religion, economy and politics. However, these “harmless” sports discussions in the media, in college campuses and society do replace more meaningful conversations and debates that take societies forward and provide an easy way out for tougher discussions.

While on topic of professional sports, I must confess that I still don’t get it - obsession of fans with professional sports clubs. I am still puzzled by the spectator’s obsessions with professional teams which allow players to be “traded”. I understand passion for sports teams that represent a country, a region and are composed of players from these areas who rarely will go across to a rival but what I can’t understand is as to why fans from a city go hysterical about a Red Sox (baseball), or a Manchester United (football, the real one), or a team like Toronto Maple Leaf (hockey) when these teams regularly “trade” players, don’t recruit locally in their cities and pamper millionaire stars who change their uniform for the next increment in their contracts.

The energy spent by fans and the money poured by the cities obsessing about a team that is ever changing and comprises of “foreign” talent perhaps is the result of primal feelings similar to that of the Roman cities “owing” their legionnaires (who mostly came from outside the cities) or is it simply that people are victims of a marketing gimmick by owners of these sports clubs and TV broadcasters who sell brands such as “Toronto Maple Leaf” to whip up the frenzy.

I have asked this question of many people and responses have been only partly convincing. The best answer came form a friend of mine justified saying “You pick a team that you relate to because of hometown, family tradition and up bringing, or because of the style and success of the play”. Others have focussed more about the team having a defined approach to the game and I don’t buy that because if a team has a well understood approach to the game, then it is likely not going to be successful in professional sports. Can you help me understand this obsession with transient professional team better?