The provincial character of fandom

In an effort to speed up play and perhaps attract new custom, MLB management has proposed new rules for extra-inning play.  For the purpose of this discussion, the rule itself is irrelevant.  What is of interest is the reaction among aficionados.  The most commonly published view seems to be that it’s a silly idea, especially as it will affect so few games.  At least one writer, though, has argued the idea is worth trying – but not in major league games.  His argument is that such games “matter,” while minor league or amateur league games do not.  He speaks of being “invested” in major league games, and describes other contests, such as the WBC tournament or the All-Star game, as “fun” or “enjoyable,” but not contests about which one “cares.”  

What, we might ask, does he mean by being invested?  What makes one set of players in one context “matter” more than players in another?  They are both, after all, playing the same game, by (largely) the same rules. It could be proposed that US major league baseball is something of a global standard-bearer and therefore its games are of greater importance than all others, but this is really nothing more than argument from tradition.  From the earliest days of baseball’s global diffusion, teams have been fielded equal to or better in talent than US teams. I assume the investment of which the writer speaks is emotional and linked, among other things, to the time spent learning about a particular team or league, and on feelings of belonging to a collective of enthusiasts from a common locale. The investment is in identity, which could theoretically be given to any team, anywhere.  The argument seems to boil down to: Don’t change my favorite league, the one that matters to me.  

Photo:  Prince Seibu Dome, Saitama, Japan.

#