I think it is a media hype thing on the fan side because the talking heads are using it to drive ratings. As I posted above, I would like to hear more details about how much the cheating happened, when it happened, what players did it, etc. to decide penalties on the Astros players.

 

The Astros has pretty much universally admitted to cheating. If it just a player or two, or only on rare occasion...they would have already said so. The fact that no one has come out to say those things makes me think at least all hitters were involved and managers/coaches/GM were all aware.

 

I remember thinking at the time, how in the world do they get so many clutch hits, it was almost magical. Well now we know.

No one is saying steroids is ok. It just seems most fans and players think what the Astros did is worse.

 

The reactions of the players is all you need to know about steroids vs. electronic sign stealing. They know how valuable it would be to know every pitch you were going to see.

Was it really damaging? It basically saved baseball after the strike of 1994 by making it more exciting. If players weren't bashing those home runs, and players not putting up big numbers, who knows where baseball might be today. Yes steroids were very damaging to the legacies of the players involved. But I don't think the sport itself suffered...if anything it benefited in a time where they needed the help.

 

I agree. As a younger man during the height of the steroid area, I couldn't wait to turn on ESPN for baseball tonight to watch all those balls get crushed, I was all about the home runs.

 

Anymore I barely watch baseball, I don't even really keep up with it much. Too many other forms of entertainment anymore I guess, and baseball can just be so slow. I went from running out to the driveway to get the paper first thing each morning to check box scores as a kid, to being apathetic these days. Baseball needs something to make the game more exciting in my opinion.

Steroids was equal opportunity cheating. You had steroid users on every team, this was one or two teams gaming the system to win. Steroids was more widespread for sure, but it also brought baseball back for many casual fans that left after earlier strikes. Bonds, Sosa and McGwire energized the game and their HR races were massively popular. How many WS titles did they get during the steroid era?

 

I think when MLB batters know what is coming, it is a much bigger advantage than being stronger would be.

No question on the equal opportunity cheating angle. Heck, little Brady Anderson hit 51 dingers after going on the juice.

And now I see on the ESPN trailer that Pennsylvania Little League squads have dropped Astros as a team name.

No question on the equal opportunity cheating angle. Heck, little Brady Anderson hit 51 dingers after going on the juice.

 

And the players said nothing about it.

And the players said nothing about it.

And neither did MLB. They knew what was buttering their bread.

And neither did MLB. They knew what was buttering their bread.

 

The Players Union blocked MLB as long as they could. The players were fine with cheating for a long time. The irony here is going to be the union will fight to defend any Astros player who MLB tries to go after. They will once again fight for cheaters.

 

As to steroids saving baseball, that is false. Attendance was relatively flat during the height of the steroids era. After MLB finally got the union to allow drug testing in 2003, attendance went up.

@Jumper Dad @rjs4470

Edited February 21, 20206 yr by Voice of Reason

The Players Union blocked MLB as long as they could. The players were fine with cheating for a long time. The irony here is going to be the union will fight to defend any Astros player who MLB tries to go after. They will once again fight for cheaters.

 

As to steroids saving baseball, that is false. Attendance was relatively flat during the height of the steroids era. After MLB finally got the union to allow drug testing in 2003, attendance went up.

@Jumper Dad @rjs4470

 

What time frame are you using to say attendance was flat? Yes attendance was way down from 1995-1997ish. But from baseball began to grow tremendously starting in mid 1997. Attendance was up over 40%. Average ticket prices rose, tv ratings were strong and revenue went from $1.4 billion to almost 4 billion. Steroids and the booming home run totals were a huge part of that.

 

How the Steroid Era Saved Baseball | The Motley Fool

What time frame are you using to say attendance was flat? Yes attendance was way down from 1995-1997ish. But from baseball began to grow tremendously starting in mid 1997. Attendance was up over 40%. Average ticket prices rose, tv ratings were strong and revenue went from $1.4 billion to almost 4 billion. Steroids and the booming home run totals were a huge part of that.

 

How the Steroid Era Saved Baseball | The Motley Fool

 

Look at the per game attendance, not the total. Baseball added two teams so that boosted the overall total attendance. The per game attendance hovered around 28,000 per game from around 1997-2003, the height of steroids abuse.

Look at the per game attendance, not the total. Baseball added two teams so that boosted the overall total attendance. The per game attendance hovered around 28,000 per game from around 1997-2003, the height of steroids abuse.

 

Per game attendance was over 31,000 prior to the strike that cancelled the WS, afterwards it plummeted to barely 25,000 in 95. The power surge in Chicago, St Louis and San Francisco was the key reason that per game attendance went up to over 28,000 in the following years.

Look at the per game attendance, not the total. Baseball added two teams so that boosted the overall total attendance. The per game attendance hovered around 28,000 per game from around 1997-2003, the height of steroids abuse.

 

So just adding two teams created almost $1.5 billion in new revenue? And a 7% increase in teams resulted in a 45% increase in league wide attendance? Remember too, that one of these teams was in Tampa, and they’ve never been a good draw. And you had a team in Montreal that absolutely nosedived, so you still only really had 28 solid markets. And you didn’t see nearly the same type of increases when baseball previously expanded in 1993. Plus expansion was in 1998...the turnaround started in 1996, which was the year home run numbers started exploding, two years before expansion hit. Expansion might have helped, but no way was it the main driving factor behind the increases you saw in the late 90’s.

Per game attendance was over 31,000 prior to the strike that cancelled the WS, afterwards it plummeted to barely 25,000 in 95. The power surge in Chicago, St Louis and San Francisco was the key reason that per game attendance went up to over 28,000 in the following years.

 

So just adding two teams created almost $1.5 billion in new revenue? And a 7% increase in teams resulted in a 45% increase in league wide attendance? Remember too, that one of these teams was in Tampa, and they’ve never been a good draw. And you had a team in Montreal that absolutely nosedived, so you still only really had 28 solid markets. And you didn’t see nearly the same type of increases when baseball previously expanded in 1993. Plus expansion was in 1998...the turnaround started in 1996, which was the year home run numbers started exploding, two years before expansion hit. Expansion might have helped, but no way was it the main driving factor behind the increases you saw in the late 90’s.

 

1993 attendance was an outlier, abnormally high. Look at 1992 and prior and the per game numbers are similar to 1997-2003. Dig deeper. Don't buy the tired and lazy media spin. The truth is in the facts.

Moving back to be more focused on the actual thread subject and the cheating scandal. The players are doing it again. We don't really know the whole truth on what the Astros did or did not do because the Astros players are "protecting" each other. Even though innocent players are tainted by this cheating scandal they still won't tell the whole truth. That is where I see a lot of similarities to the steroids situation. The players are lying for each other and they are in large part to blame for the whole cheating fiasco. Meanwhile Manfred and MLB are taking all the hits.

1993 attendance was an outlier, abnormally high. Look at 1992 and prior and the per game numbers are similar to 1997-2003. Dig deeper. Don't buy the tired and lazy media spin. The truth is in the facts.

 

Look deeper, look at the numbers at St. Louis, Chicago and San Francisco for the decade prior to the power surge. SF for example was drawing in the 20's the entire decade, Bonds blows up and attendance jumps into the 40k+ range. Cubs were getting 26-27K the three years after the strike, Sosa goes off and attendance jumps to 33K and grows to 40K+ over the next 5 seasons. St.Louis shows similar growth. The Reds who were steroidless had near zero attendance growth. The teams with the "Juice" drew the crowds. The HR races captured the attention of fans that had lost interest over the strike. Baseball popularity can't be measured soley by butts in seats, as the majority of MLB fans live more than an hours drive from their favorite team.