Bonds apparently busted for steroid use.

[bohob]

If we're talking about teaching the history of the game, then you have to include Mac and Sosa for saving baseball. Sure, you can argue about the validity of their numbers, but the fact that they saved baseball is very, very, real. And if they get in, so do Bonds and Clemens. Remember, it was the steroid era. Pitchers were 'roiding too. And they had to hit off those pitchers. For Mac, Bonds, Sosa, etc., much (although not all) of their competition was 'roiding too. And yes, MLB is partly to blame for not testing. How can you put a group of hungry competitors on the honor system?

As far as Rose goes, he should be out. You don't gamble on your own sport, throw games, and expect to get in. Rose's gambling was an isolated incident in which he was the only one at the time gambling on his own team.

[jkrdevil]

If we're talking about teaching the history of the game, then you have to include Mac and Sosa for saving baseball. Sure, you can argue about the validity of their numbers, but the fact that they saved baseball is very, very, real. And if they get in, so do Bonds and Clemens. Remember, it was the steroid era. Pitchers were 'roiding too. And they had to hit off those pitchers. For Mac, Bonds, Sosa, etc., much (although not all) of their competition was 'roiding too. And yes, MLB is partly to blame for not testing. How can you put a group of hungry competitors on the honor system?

As far as Rose goes, he should be out. You don't gamble on your own sport, throw games, and expect to get in. Rose's gambling was an isolated incident in which he was the only one at the time gambling on his own team.

Myth: The 1998 Home Run Race saved baseball.

The first full season after the strike, 1996, saw an average attendance of 26,498. 1997 saw an increase to 27,852, and increase of 1,354 people per game. 1998 saw a similar increase to 29,054 average attendance, an increase of 1,202 from the previous year (slightly less than the increase from 96-97. Attendance actually declined very slightly in 1999 to 28,864 down. Attendance steadily increased over the next two year by on average of 500 more people per game each year. It fell to 27,961 in 2002 almost a decrease of 2,000 people per game. It fell slightly again in 2003 before increasing almost as dramatically in 2004 to where it has come close to the pre-strike levels currently.

If the home run race of 1998 truely brought people back to baseball as some people say one would expect to see a big spike in attendance for 1998 and 1999. However that is not the case 1998 saw a steady increase about the same as from 96 to 97 and 99 actually saw a slight decrease. That to me shows that baseball fans naturally were already coming back to the game at the time as time healed the wounds from the strike. An ironic fact is Baseball is now getting back to that pre-strike level of 1993 after all the stuff about steroids has come out.

Not to mention there are other factors that affected (and still do) attendance. Mainly the opening of new ballparks since 1993 that have featured a reduce capacity thus helping to limit attendance. The Rockies in 1993 drew over 4 million intheir first year playing at Mile High. I don't know in the best of years that they could draw 4 million playing at a smaller Coors Field. The Yankees barely drew over 4 million the last couple of years and now themselves are moving into a smaller stadium.

98 home run race was exciting and dramatic; however, it did not "save" baseball.

[WSU151]

If we're talking about teaching the history of the game, then you have to include Mac and Sosa for saving baseball. Sure, you can argue about the validity of their numbers, but the fact that they saved baseball is very, very, real. And if they get in, so do Bonds and Clemens. Remember, it was the steroid era. Pitchers were 'roiding too. And they had to hit off those pitchers. For Mac, Bonds, Sosa, etc., much (although not all) of their competition was 'roiding too. And yes, MLB is partly to blame for not testing. How can you put a group of hungry competitors on the honor system?

As far as Rose goes, he should be out. You don't gamble on your own sport, throw games, and expect to get in. Rose's gambling was an isolated incident in which he was the only one at the time gambling on his own team.

Myth: The 1998 Home Run Race saved baseball.

The first full season after the strike, 1996, saw an average attendance of 26,498. 1997 saw an increase to 27,852, and increase of 1,354 people per game. 1998 saw a similar increase to 29,054 average attendance, an increase of 1,202 from the previous year (slightly less than the increase from 96-97. Attendance actually declined very slightly in 1999 to 28,864 down. Attendance steadily increased over the next two year by on average of 500 more people per game each year. It fell to 27,961 in 2002 almost a decrease of 2,000 people per game. It fell slightly again in 2003 before increasing almost as dramatically in 2004 to where it has come close to the pre-strike levels currently.

If the home run race of 1998 truely brought people back to baseball as some people say one would expect to see a big spike in attendance for 1998 and 1999. However that is not the case 1998 saw a steady increase about the same as from 96 to 97 and 99 actually saw a slight decrease. That to me shows that baseball fans naturally were already coming back to the game at the time as time healed the wounds from the strike. An ironic fact is Baseball is now getting back to that pre-strike level of 1993 after all the stuff about steroids has come out.

Not to mention there are other factors that affected (and still do) attendance. Mainly the opening of new ballparks since 1993 that have featured a reduce capacity thus helping to limit attendance. The Rockies in 1993 drew over 4 million intheir first year playing at Mile High. I don't know in the best of years that they could draw 4 million playing at a smaller Coors Field. The Yankees barely drew over 4 million the last couple of years and now themselves are moving into a smaller stadium.

98 home run race was exciting and dramatic; however, it did not "save" baseball.

You have the differences in attendance, but what about the changes in television ratings and media revenue from '96 to '99?

[rangerfan94]

I saw Macs 62......cant remember who broadcasted it, but it was a game that wasnt even to be on the tube ,if I remember correctly. Yeah, Bonds is a douche. I would be to if i were asked the same questions by the media every day.

No the HR race between Mac and Sosa did not save baseball, but it brought alot of attention back to the game at the time.

Roger Maris wasnt media friendly either. He was a douche in N.Y. Yeah Bonds lied, cheated and whatever. Wouldnt it be interesting to know EXACTLY who were roiaded up during that time? Well if baseball handled it correctly, and tested players in a regular manner we would know.

[jkrdevil]

If we're talking about teaching the history of the game, then you have to include Mac and Sosa for saving baseball. Sure, you can argue about the validity of their numbers, but the fact that they saved baseball is very, very, real. And if they get in, so do Bonds and Clemens. Remember, it was the steroid era. Pitchers were 'roiding too. And they had to hit off those pitchers. For Mac, Bonds, Sosa, etc., much (although not all) of their competition was 'roiding too. And yes, MLB is partly to blame for not testing. How can you put a group of hungry competitors on the honor system?

As far as Rose goes, he should be out. You don't gamble on your own sport, throw games, and expect to get in. Rose's gambling was an isolated incident in which he was the only one at the time gambling on his own team.

Myth: The 1998 Home Run Race saved baseball.

The first full season after the strike, 1996, saw an average attendance of 26,498. 1997 saw an increase to 27,852, and increase of 1,354 people per game. 1998 saw a similar increase to 29,054 average attendance, an increase of 1,202 from the previous year (slightly less than the increase from 96-97. Attendance actually declined very slightly in 1999 to 28,864 down. Attendance steadily increased over the next two year by on average of 500 more people per game each year. It fell to 27,961 in 2002 almost a decrease of 2,000 people per game. It fell slightly again in 2003 before increasing almost as dramatically in 2004 to where it has come close to the pre-strike levels currently.

If the home run race of 1998 truely brought people back to baseball as some people say one would expect to see a big spike in attendance for 1998 and 1999. However that is not the case 1998 saw a steady increase about the same as from 96 to 97 and 99 actually saw a slight decrease. That to me shows that baseball fans naturally were already coming back to the game at the time as time healed the wounds from the strike. An ironic fact is Baseball is now getting back to that pre-strike level of 1993 after all the stuff about steroids has come out.

Not to mention there are other factors that affected (and still do) attendance. Mainly the opening of new ballparks since 1993 that have featured a reduce capacity thus helping to limit attendance. The Rockies in 1993 drew over 4 million in their first year playing at Mile High. I don't know in the best of years that they could draw 4 million playing at a smaller Coors Field. The Yankees barely drew over 4 million the last couple of years and now themselves are moving into a smaller stadium.

98 home run race was exciting and dramatic; however, it did not "save" baseball.

You have the differences in attendance, but what about the changes in television ratings and media revenue from '96 to '99?

OK, let's talk TV ratings. First the All-Star Game where it would probably have the biggest impact (as these players took part).

The 1993 and 1994 All-Star games received about the same rating about a 15.7 (a little over 22 million viewer). The 95 game got a 13.9, in 96 a 13.2, and in 97 an 11.8. It did spike in 1998 to a 13.3 (still below the first ASG after the strike) but it fell back a 12 rating for 99 and to a record low 10.1 in 2000. While it did spike during the HR race it dropped back down the next year. The difference between the 97 All-Star game and the 99 ASG was less than a million viewers. That difference could simply be the difference in venue was the '99 game was held at Fenway.

OK the ASG is a meaningless exhibition let's move onto the crown jewel of the MLB season the World Series.

On CBS the World Series in 92 received an average of a 20.2 rating, in 1993 it got a 17.3 rating. 1995 the first WS after the strike got a 19.5 rating on NBC and ABC. '96 the first year on Fox got a 17.4. In '97 it fell to a 16.8. Now onto the magic 1998 season that not only featured the HR race but a powerhouse Yankee team. That year it got a then record low 14.1. 1999, it rose to a 16 rating but that was still lower than the comparable 96 series between the 2 teams (admittedly 96 was the better on field series). Ratings in 2000 fell to 12.4 and 2001 got a 15.7 well below the previous 7 game series in 1997. The WS last year got a record low 8.4 series.

It's interesting that ratings have basically fell during the time when the most popular team in the biggest market (the Yankees) re-emerged that usually helps boost ratings. That said the ratings falling probably have little to do with baseball and more to do with the changing nature of television. I know prior to the strike the most channels you could get was probably less than 70. Now you can get 150-200 channels on cable of through the dish. This is the reason I didn't use TV ratings in the first place. On top of it ratings for events rely heavily on the competitive nature of the event. The 1998 and 99 ratings are hurt by the fact that those series were sweeps.

Problems with ratings aside there is nothing to indicate that the HR Race of 1998 had a major effect.

Now moving onto media revenue. The NFL, NBA, and even at the time the NHL all saw increases in their TV contracts and media revenue renewed at the time. Certainly McGwire and Sosa had no impact in those sports. It seems the nature of the industry, the emergence of FOX as a 4th major TV network, and a booming economy probably had more of an impact on MLB's media revenues than the HR race.

In conclusion, I think it is a myth that the 1998 home run race "saved" baseball. Mainly for the fact that baseball didn't need to be saved. Sure it had taken a small hit after the strike however it was well on its way to recovering and in some areas had already recovered.

[Jigga]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

[Milo Meningocele]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

Phelps smoking pot (outside of competition periods, no less) didn't enhance his performance, thusly tainting the honesty of his accomplishments, as with Bonds. If anything, even if he was smoking around that time, it would've only hurt him.

The Hall of Fame honors accomplishments, not character. I think it's okay to keep a guy out when his accomplishments were ill-gotten and fraudulent.

[IceCap]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

Well therefore, under the laws of Meningocele-nomics, taking performance-enhancing steroids is no longer illegal 'cause a seizable portion of the population do it.

[Milo Meningocele]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

Well therefore, under the laws of Meningocele-nomics, taking performance-enhancing steroids is no longer illegal 'cause a seizable portion of the population do it.

Dude, my stance (on Bonds/steroids) was directly before yours. The least you could've done was read it (or comprehend it, if you did read it). Phelps is a non-story, because most people (even if they don't smoke it themselves) don't think pot's a big deal. But that discussion belongs in the other thread, it's not relevant here.

And you misquoted me again. It's "sizable", as in large.

[IceCap]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

Well therefore, under the laws of Meningocele-nomics, taking performance-enhancing steroids is no longer illegal 'cause a seizable portion of the population do it.

Dude, my stance (on Bonds/steroids) was directly before yours. The least you could've done was read it (or comprehend it, if you did read it). Phelps is a non-story, because most people (even if they don't smoke it themselves) don't think pot's a big deal. But that discussion belongs in the other thread, it's not relevant here.

And you misquoted me again. It's "sizable", as in large.

Again, I was under the impression that was what "seizable" meant.

And I did read your stance, and yes Self-Righteous Sparky, I did comprehend it. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistence with your own stances. With Michael Phelps smoking pot is a non-issue because, hey, lots of people do it so really, it's no big deal.

Yet you condemn Barry Bonds' use of illegal steroids, despite the fact that a large number of players in MLB use them.

In both cases the substances are illegal and banned by larger bodies governing the sports in question. In both cases use of the substances are wide spread.

Yet in one case you say it's a non-issue, and in an other you say it matters. You can't have it both ways. Either Bonds' use of steroids is no big deal, or Phelps' smoking pot is a big deal. You can't pick and choose which cases your morals apply to.

[Milo Meningocele]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.

I'm going to use the Michael Phelps defense on this one...Barry was just doing what most aging sluggers/power pitchers do/did. Him hitting all those home runs didn't hurt anyone else, and it didn't hurt the game any more than Clemens, Canseco, Bagwell, Gagne, Pettitte, Giambi², half the Orioles and Mets, etc. did.

Well therefore, under the laws of Meningocele-nomics, taking performance-enhancing steroids is no longer illegal 'cause a seizable portion of the population do it.

Dude, my stance (on Bonds/steroids) was directly before yours. The least you could've done was read it (or comprehend it, if you did read it). Phelps is a non-story, because most people (even if they don't smoke it themselves) don't think pot's a big deal. But that discussion belongs in the other thread, it's not relevant here.

And you misquoted me again. It's "sizable", as in large.

Again, I was under the impression that was what "seizable" meant.

And I did read your stance, and yes Self-Righteous Sparky, I did comprehend it. I'm simply pointing out an inconsistence with your own stances. With Michael Phelps smoking pot is a non-issue because, hey, lots of people do it so really, it's no big deal.

Yet you condemn Barry Bonds' use of illegal steroids, despite the fact that a large number of players in MLB use them.

In both cases the substances are illegal and banned by larger bodies governing the sports in question. In both cases use of the substances are wide spread.

Yet in one case you say it's a non-issue, and in an other you say it matters. You can't have it both ways. Either Bonds' use of steroids is no big deal, or Phelps' smoking pot is a big deal. You can't pick and choose which cases your morals apply to.

The difference here is that Phelps smoking pot doesn't do anything to enhance his performance, and furthermore he did it outside of competition periods. Bonds (and everyone else) taking steroids helped to fraudulently attain accomplishments. Here, we're specifically talking about whether guys that cheated to reach their achievements should be rewarded for those achievements. It's a different end point being debated, so of course the argument is different.

[IceCap]

I understand the "well what Phelps did didn't artificially enhance his performance" argument, and I concede the fact that the only proof we have of Phelps smoking cannabis is after the Olympics.

In the end, as much as I see the validity to those arguments, I have to call semantics. In both cases the athletes in question knowingly consumed drugs that are banned by their respective sports.

Don't get me wrong, Phelps' infraction is indeed more of a non-issue because it happened after the Games and the drug wasn't performance enhancing. I do, however, feel he should be reprimanded, assuming he's still an active competitor.

[The_Admiral]

He'll be reprimanded by losing an endorsement deal or two. Smacked down by the invisible hand. This county sheriff trying to press charges is a grandstanding buffoon. Thought that region learned its lesson from Nifong.

[pcgd]

How many current hall of famers did amphetamines?

[Jigga]

All of 'em.

[rangerfan94]

I wanted to post his onn the AROID thread but, No. Gaining an edge and cheating in sports are and have been common.

I will make this short. Two names come to mind. both HOF pitchers.

Gaylord Perry. Cheater. Spittball Pitcher emery board baseball doctor.

Ferguson Jenkins. coke, hash, weed, suspension.

Im having a hard time understanding what the difference is, between

these two examples and the ones being discussed here. also corked bats

and pie tar come to mind.

[The_Admiral]

At least with Perry, one can argue that doctoring the ball is mostly harmless ingenuity. It wasn't like he made himself a freak of nature. Baseball is supposed to be the game of the common man, with regular guys doing extraordinary things. Slipping a little something on the ball is against the rules, but it's a part of the game's history, I guess. It's also cutely populist, like something a couple of lunkheads on a neighborhood softball field might do. I'm not even sure I agree with myself, but it can be thrown out there.