In
1995, baseball was back. Because of government action, the old collective
bargaining agreement was put back in place and legal action against the owners
began. Players returned to playing again, owners went back to making money
again, but the fans did not come back. Stadiums had 20% less people, boos were
heard throughout from spectators, and fans felt betrayed (BLS). The players
made a decision to go on a strike for reasons of their own. Little did the
players and owners know, that the strike of 1994 would be remembered as a time
where respect for professional baseball players was lost from the fans. This
event changed the way that players were seen in the eyes of the fans.
In the weeks leading up to the 1994-95 MLB strike, fans
let players and owners know they might not return following the work stoppage.
(AP file photo)
The fans made it very clear to the
players of their disapproval of the strike. In the image above, a fan wrote how
they felt about the strike in baseball terminology, “NO BALLS… ONE STRIKE…
WE’RE OUT!” (AP). The term, “NO BALLS… ONE STRIKE” refers to the pitch count in
an at-bat between the pitcher and the batter. A ball is referring to a pitch outside of the strike zone. Four throw
balls results in the batter to going
to first base. A strike occurs when
the batter swings and misses at a pitch, or when the pitcher throws the
baseball within the strike zone. Three strikes
result in an out. On the sign,
“WE”RE OUT”, refers to an out within
the game of baseball. An out occurs
by the batter striking out on three strikes, or if the defense makes a play
that does not allow the batter on the bases. The sign is a direct pun, related
from the game of baseball, to the players from the fans. The term, “NO BALLS”
meant the fans thought the players showed a lack of courage or valor. On the
sign, “ONE STRIKE” resembled that strike that happened between the players and
owners. The term, “WE’RE OUT”, referred to the fans as a whole were going to
stop supporting Major League Baseball. Those words resembled so much more than
fan-made sign at a game. It spoke about the emotions that fans felt when the
strike occurred. Threatening to leave, as fans, was a clear message to the MLB
that although a strike may have been beneficial for the players and owners, it
was not beneficial for the fans.
Lifetime Topps Project. January 25, 2012.
The
sign above was directed towards the players on the field. Growing up, being a
baseball player was along the lines of being an astronaut or being the
President of the United States. It was a dream that many strived to do. For
those that accomplished that goal, it was a tremendous feat. For those that did
not, they became spectators of the sport. They became the fans and most of them
ahd always dreamed of the opportunity to play professionally. After the strike
occurred, the sign shown above represented that the fans viewpoint of the
players changed completely. In the fans minds, the players went from childhood
heroes to athletes solely seeking more and more money. To dedicated fans, the
game of baseball was more than a “game”. It was a way of life. Many fans talked
about it, read about it, and watched baseball as if it was religion. For fans,
to watch their favorite players support the strike would have been a slap in
the face. The fans showed so much support the strike, and how did the players
re-pay them? They went on strike, asking for more money. The fans made a point
that if the players were going to be greedy, then the fans were not going to be
there for them either. For the players who saw this sign, did it make them
think about the strike? Were the players going on strike because they wanted
more money? Or, was it because they did not want the owners to profit so much?
The
fans negativity of the strike challenges the identity of players as laborers
within baseball. Major League players in 1994 signed contracts to work for a
team for a certain amount of time. They were being paid under the agreements of
that contract. For owners, their entire goal was to make to the team as profitable
as possible. As a result, an opportunity to incorporate a salary cap was a
clear business plan that would make the organizations much more money. The
players realized that although the team would make money, themselves as
individuals would not see an extra dime of the new proposed collective
bargaining agreement. As laborers, they understood this and took a stand
against the owners.
This
situation has been very common in other sports leagues such as the National Football
League (NFL), when owners proposed lower salaries, as well as increase the
number of games played in the regular season. This created tension and caused a
lockout from the NFL Players Association. Lockouts between players unions and
owners have been a very common occurrence. In sports, there are three parties
that must all be satisfied with the business plan: the owners, the players, and
the fans. When one of those parties is not satisfied, they will protest until
what they believe is the best situation for them. In 1998, the National
Basketball League team owners locked out the players. This had to do with
losses in profits from more than half of the organizations. The owners and
players reworked contracts that pleased both sides. In 1995, it was the MLB
fans that protested. The way that fans protested was by not attending as many
games, as well as through emotion. Through the signs, constant boos, and lack
of interest, the fans made it clear how they stood about the lockout. This was
a rare occurrence when the fans were so against a strike (CMC).
The
players took a hard hit from the fans for standing up for themselves against
the MLB team owners. The spectators booed, yelled, and made signs directed at
the players for being people that seemed to only play for the money. Fans argued
that baseball players should not worry about salary issues because they “love
the game”. On September 13, 2015 in Seattle, teachers went on strike because
they believed that they were not being compensated enough for their work. Some
could argue that they should accept the low salary because teachers are known
for lower salaries and because Seattle teachers make $20,000 more than the
average teacher in Washington State (Seattle Times). This was an example when a
group went on strike because they believed that they should have been
compensated more for their work. The same could have been said for the MLB
players.
The
MLBPA went on strike in 1994 and although the fans responded negatively, it was
best for themselves as players. They played a sport that generated billions of
dollars in cash flow. Without the players, there would have been no interest
for fans, and without fans, the sport of baseball would not still be around.
The players and owners learned their lesson when it came to handling collective
bargaining agreements and have been more prepared when negotiating new deals.
The players were looking out for themselves as well making sure that they were
being paid fairly. When they realized they were not, they took a stand against
the owners and fought for what they thought was right.
Works Cited
Caldwell,
Terrence. "An Overview and Comparative Analysis of the Collective
Bargaining Agreements in the NBA, NFL, and MLB." Claremont
Colleges. CMC Student Scholarship, 2010. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Shapiro, Nina,
and Jim Brunner. "No School Monday for Seattle as Talks Continue in
Teachers Strike." The Seattle Times. Local News, 13 Sept.
2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
Staudohar,
Paul D. "The Baseball Strike of 1994-95 : Monthly Labor Review: U.S.
Bureau ofLabor Statistics." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar.1997. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
Scott I appreciate your attempt to analyze rhetoric in this section through the reactions of the fans, and comparing it to other protests that are similar such as the teacher strike. However I feel as if you have kind of glossed over the actual strike. Even though you discuss it in the rhetorical section it still feels limited, I think you can add this information to your introduction section.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hope your extensive explanation of how baseball is played was not added because of me lol! I could not help but laugh thinking about you explaining the entire game thinking I wouldn't get it! I think you should tone down your explanation in that section, even though I understand you want to analyze it as rhetoric.
Seriously though this section made a lot of sense, I just think you need to work on connecting it to the other two sections a little bit. In the conclusion I would expect to see how this strike affected the future of baseball, and other baseball strikes.
When I was reading this I was also laughing a little bit because I remembered Anna's comments about not understanding baseball, and knew that you put the effort in your explanation so she could understand. I do agree with Anna, and especially as someone who knows baseball, that the explanation of the game of baseball was a little hard to swallow and it took away from your analysis of the artifacts.
ReplyDelete1) I do think that your essay is logically organized. You have a clear intro to the subject that seems to transition well from your other portion of the essay. I did a similar analysis of artifacts in my paper, simple mottos on posters, and found that I came to a similar problem that you seem to be facing as well. How, exactly, do we look deeply in something so simple? I don't have much advice for the first one. I think you do a good job in analyzing that sign, but when we come across to the second sign I think we can look deeper into what those words mean. First off, we have this idea of the "field of dreams" which is a direct title of a baseball movie, the "field of dreams" directed by Phil Robinson. It might not help what you're trying to do, but I think you could relate it back to the movie. Baseball isn't just a sport, it's a connection that we have with our fathers and othe male figures in our lives, atleast for many young men and also young women. We see that idea in the film above mentioned, so maybe the slogan is trying to use pathos in that it evokes some memory of a time when baseball wasn't about money, but instead it was away for us to connect to our families and our friends, and therefore create a sense of sadness. I see your other points as well, but I think that the movie reference is just too hard to ignore. I think what I am missing is the player's side of things. What kind of rhetorical artifact did they use in their strike to earn more money? How about the coaches? If you can't find this information I understand, but it would be interesting and it would strengthen your paper (since you talk about coaches and players along with fans) very greatly.
2) For the most part your threes sections are coherent. I expect your revised edit to incooperate Anna's suggestion of organization for your rhetorical and historical context sections, so other than that I think they all go well together. Like I said already, you mention coached and players along with fans, but I feel like we are missing those two identities in this portion of your essay.
3) With your protest, I believe the conclusion will answer the historical/political/and social consequences of your protest, as well as the effects on how people understood the player's strike issue. If I remember correctly, your essay question directly connected to the historical and social consequences of the strike, your conclusion will be a nice spot to answer that question.
4) As for my last comments, it seems your analysis of artifacts kind of just drops off and you go straight to concluding your paper and tying everything together. I think putting more analysis in your paper of other artifacts will make this section a lot stronger, especially if it encoperates other identities (i.e. players and coaches).
Overall this is a great paper and I'm excited to see what you do with it.
I looked up an analysis of "Field of Dreams," and I got so excited of the idea of including it into your paper that I had to share it with you. Here is a quote from a movie review I found: "The director, Phil Alden Robinson, and the writer, W. P. Kinsella, are dealing with stuff that’s close to the heart (it can’t be a coincidence that the author and the hero have the same last name).
ReplyDeleteThey love baseball, and they think it stands for an earlier, simpler time when professional sports were still games and not industries.
There is a speech in this movie about baseball that is so simple and true that it is heartbreaking. And the whole attitude toward the players reflects that attitude. Why do they come back from the great beyond and play in this cornfield? Not to make any kind of vast, earthshattering statement, but simply to hit a few and field a few, and remind us of a good and innocent time."
Here is that speech he is talking about:
"Mann: Ray, people will come, Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway, not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. "Of course, we won't mind if you have a look around," you'll say. "It's only twenty dollars per person." They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it; for it is money they have and peace they lack.
Mark: Ray, just sign the papers.
Mann: And they'll walk out to the bleachers, and sit in shirt-sleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game, and it'll be as if they'd dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick, they'll have to brush them away from their faces.
Mark: Ray, when the bank opens in the morning, they'll foreclose.
Mann: People will come, Ray.
Mark: You're broke, Ray. You sell now or you lose everything.
Mann: The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again. Ohhhhhhhh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come.
Mark: Ray, you will lose everything. You will be evicted...C'mon, Ray.
Ray: I'm not signing.
Mark: Ahhh, you're crazy! Absolutely nuts!!"
Links: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechfieldofdreams.html
Deletehttp://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/field-of-dreams-1989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SB16il97yw
DeleteAlso, the film involves a rebirth of the baseball player Joe Jackson, who was a part of the 1919 Black Sox team, which, I'm sure you know, was one of the two teams that had tried to rig the World Series. How does this connect to your paper? The players in your strike are out for money, just like Joe Jackson and his team was when they tried to rig the World Series. Baseball used to be about the game, but now it is about marketing and profit. This concept goes all the way down to the players who ask for more money and when they don't get it they quit. I think that is what you're trying to say in your analysis of the artifact. It angered the fans because baseball was a dream, but not only a dream, a memory of innocent times. What baseball means to America is almost as symbolic as the Bald Eagle (to give reference to Harold's paper). Taking baseball away was un-American. Like the movie says "They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. "Of course, we won't mind if you have a look around," you'll say. "It's only twenty dollars per person." They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it; for it is money they have and peace they lack."
ReplyDelete