[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I meant to direct my anger for the philistines in the baseball card industry who destroy old memorabilia and did not mean to abuse those who find the cards appealing.

You make an interesting point about the difference between a work of art like a painting and a mere tool. You very reasonably say that there are different things that a ballplayer (or artist) uses in his craft and that the most important of these would be something internal, his distinctive mind or spirit, which is at least as important as his bodily skills and strength. But the bat (or brush)is far less distinctive and important to the player (artist). Thus, it is Babe Ruths determination, swing, and athleticism that makes him impressive and memorable, not the Louisville Slugger that he used when he swung. If this is what youre saying, it sounds reasonable to me.

So, I ask myself, why do I care about the bats? I think it is because the bat is not just any tool used in the players everyday life. The player selected the design of the bat and often personalized it. Swing a Heine Groh bat or a Ruth bat. Each one tells you something about the size of the player and even about what kind of hitters they were. Thus, the reason why I do not care about Larry Doyle's silverware or about Paul Waner's lawnmowers is that they probably dont say much the ballplayer himself. But their bats tell me a little something about what made these particular players the distinctive hitters that they were. On similar grounds, I bet it would be very interesting to compare Picasso's brushes with Monet's or with Titian's.

So, anyway, thanks for your thoughtful remarks because they helped me think some more about why I give a darn about this topic.