The ‘Globalization’ of American Baseball

Michael Clough’s essay in the March 31 Opinion section, while generally on the mark, disturbed me greatly on one particular point. Clough’s first sentence reads, “America’s national pastime isn’t as ‘American’ as it used to be.” He supports his theory first by examining the current Dodger starting rotation, which is wholly comprised of foreign-born pitchers, then by documenting the history of foreign-born baseball players and, finally, by pointing to signs that this trend is increasing in the ‘90s. This discussion by the author is both informative and insightful.

The problem arises, however, when Clough moves to other sports, in particular, professional hockey. Suddenly, when discussing the influx of foreign-born participants, Clough conveniently dismisses the overwhelming majority of Canadian players in the NHL by lumping them in with Americans, calling hockey a traditional “Canadian-American preserve.” Foreign-born players in hockey, according to Clough, are those who are “non-North Americans.”

This contradiction by the author begs several questions. On what continent do Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Cuba lie, if not North America? Why is it that Mexicans and other Latin Americans in baseball, a minority of players at this time, signal the globalization of that sport, whereas Canadians in hockey, constituting a majority of the participants, do not? If Latin Americans have such a rich historical presence in baseball, as Clough detailed, why is baseball not considered a “United States-Latin American preserve,” similar to the manner in which he described hockey?

My understanding of the history of baseball is that an American developed the game and that American servicemen, so proud of this game, introduced it to other countries. Should not we also then feel pride in the fact that other countries have so wholeheartedly adopted our “national pastime” that some are now able to compete with us on our own level playing field?

KEVIN F. MABREY

Los Angeles