Were fans ever as bugged about steroids as were sportswriters? Teh attendance didn't seem to suggest as much.

Mainstream media is the owners' voice, not the fans. I am much more concerned with price gouging in baseball than steroids. $1 for soda, $1 for hotdog, $1 for parking or Bonds off steroids? Not a tough choice.

Were fans ever as bugged about steroids as were sportswriters? Teh attendance didn't seem to suggest as much.

AFAIC this whole steroid is now pretty much only a HOF debate among the writers. And the percentage of fans who care about any "injustice" to juicers who get blackballed from the HOF isn't all that big, either. You're not going to see Cooperstown attendance suffer if there isn't a Mark McGwire plaque, or even if Barry Bonds doesn't make it. Nobody makes a pilgrimmage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.

Of course at that point the Steroid SoWhaters, who use the lack of an attendance drop as proof that "fans don't care", will change the subject. Then they'll be the ones who'll be saying "where's the outrage?" And the rest of us will be doing the yawning.

"I have a snake named 'Dog' and a dog named 'Snake.'"

steroids don't bother me but livingston sure does. PD should keep pluto and start over among columnists and baseball writers.

AFAIC this whole steroid is now pretty much only a HOF debate among the writers. And the percentage of fans who care about any "injustice" to juicers who get blackballed from the HOF isn't all that big, either. You're not going to see Cooperstown attendance suffer if there isn't a Mark McGwire plaque, or even if Barry Bonds doesn't make it. Nobody makes a pilgrimage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.
Of course at that point the Steroid SoWhaters, who use the lack of an attendance drop as proof that "fans don't care", will change the subject. Then they'll be the ones who'll be saying "where's the outrage?" And the rest of us will be doing the yawning.

Under this scenario, doesn't that make "the Steroid SoWhaters," er, everybody?

Yeah, some of those people who don't care will really get to lord it over the rest of the people who don't care. That'll show 0.0005% of 'em!

Under this scenario, doesn't that make "the Steroid SoWhaters," er, everybody?

Yeah, some of those people who don't care will really get to lord it over the rest of the people who don't care. That'll show 0.0005% of 'em!

If you accept the idea that the only acceptable "proof" that you "care" is boycotting the games because of steroids, or boycotting the HOF if McGwire or Bonds gets blackballed, then sure, "nobody cares."

But in both cases you can only reach that conclusion by forcing each side to be defined by the other side's terms. I can see why lawyers love this site.

The testing program is in place, the Mitchell Report was issued, and Bonds is gone. I think that satisfies most folks. Not saying it should or it shouldn't--but I think it does.

The testing program is in place, the Mitchell Report was issued, and Bonds is gone. I think that satisfies most folks. Not saying it should or it shouldn't--but I think it does.

Exactly. Which is why I said that it's mostly been reduced to HOF debates and little else.

I can see why lawyers love this site.

I disagree. I would guess that many lawyers who enjoy sports enjoy baseball. To be a lawyer, you have to be intrigued by minutiae and details and it goes the same with baseball. In particular, this site revels in daily minutiae that 99.99% of the world just doesn't care about it. Add in the importance of and appreciation for written communication and debate and I'm surprised that there aren't MORE lawyers here.

If you accept the idea that the only acceptable "proof" that you "care" is boycotting the games because of steroids, or boycotting the HOF if McGwire or Bonds gets blackballed, then sure, "nobody cares."

But in both cases you can only reach that conclusion by forcing each side to be defined by the other side's terms. I can see why lawyers love this site.
Where your analogy is weak is that ther eare 30 MLB stadiums all over the country and one HOF in a small out-of-the-way burg in NY.

Fans were turned off by the strike, and attendance fell. They simply weren't actually turned off by steroids. The Giants road attendance was HUGE.

NOw, knowing that your analogy is weak, and doesn't hold water, won't keep you from running it out there every chance you get with some other "oh I'm so clever" nickname for people who think the "steroids as a problem" is overblown.

Nobody makes a pilgrimmage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.

Are you claiming people don't go to a baseball game to see a particular player?

They simply weren't actually turned off by steroids. The Giants road attendance was HUGE.

I think this only works as evidence if you use a particular definition of "turned off." I think a lot of people were specifically furious at Bonds (deservedly or not), and went to games for the purpose of venting their anger. I think, on top of that, the incredible circus that Bonds created for being his specific type of player (and chasing the home run record) probably drew people as well. I didn't go see him, but I lived less than 700 miles from the nearest NL ballpark, I would have been all over that -- and not because I don't care that Bonds took steroids, but because I would have wanted to see what all the furor was about. And I would have wanted to see him break the record -- which was a circumstance that was specific to him and certainly didn't/doesn't apply to all steroids abusers.

But, say, if it's an average team (i.e., not the Yankees or Red Sox), full of average players, made good by steroids, that would be a team with a lot of bad press that may actually lose fans. Though unfortunately I can't think of a team like that off the top of my head, so maybe my hypothetical situation is flawed.

But, say, if it's an average team (i.e., not the Yankees or Red Sox), full of average players, made good by steroids, that would be a team with a lot of bad press that may actually lose fans. Though unfortunately I can't think of a team like that off the top of my head, so maybe my hypothetical situation is flawed.

I think if the 2001 Orioles traveled forward in time and started playing road games, they would get some backlash.

Personally I went to two games to see Bonds, one in 2006 when he didn't play until being walked in the 10th inning but there was an amazing rainstorm and a two-hour delay, and one in 2007 when he hit two homers and Russ Ortiz shut down those powerful Pirates bats for 8 2/3 innings. Both rewarding experiences.

The only other player I've gone to a game specifically to see, that I can remember, was Orlando Hernandez.

But in both cases you can only reach that conclusion by forcing each side to be defined by the other side's terms. I can see why lawyers love this site.

Where your analogy is weak is that ther eare 30 MLB stadiums all over the country and one HOF in a small out-of-the-way burg in NY.

Which has nothing to do with anything, since I'm talking about relative attendance. If you can say with a straight face that "fans don't care about steroids because they aren't boycotting games," you can just as easily say with a straight face that "fans don't care about HOF blackballs because HOF attendance hasn't dropped." If people like you really cared about HOF blackballs (and I'm not saying you do), you'd boycott the HOF until Mark McGwire's blackball was removed.

Nobody makes a pilgrimmage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.

Are you claiming people don't go to a baseball game to see a particular player?

Sure they do---on that player's induction day. But after that, don't be ridiculous. They go to see the entire Museum, not to see any given plaque. Do you really think that anyone drives all those miles to see one bleeping plaque, and then turns around and drive back home? Not even Margo Adams would do that.

I think a lot of people were specifically furious at Bonds (deservedly or not), and went to games for the purpose of venting their anger.

I don't think "a lot" did. And nowhere near as many that went to see him hit a home run.

I went to see other people boo him. And then I ended up booing him too.

Because it never matters whether the Pirates win or lose, the crowds at PNC Park generally express no emotion at all, unless there is an especially large Phillies or Mets contingent there rooting against the Pirates.

So I wanted that unique experience. Which was indeed extremely unlike any other experience I'd had there.

Are you claiming people don't go to a baseball game to see a particular player?

Sure they do---on that player's induction day. But after that, don't be ridiculous. They go to see the entire Museum, not to see any given plaque. Do you really think that anyone drives all those miles to see one bleeping plaque, and then turns around and drive back home?

Re-read what I wrote. TIA.

Andy, do you think Hall of Fame attendance would drop if Bonds or McGwire is inducted?

Nobody makes a pilgrimmage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.

Are you claiming people don't go to a baseball game to see a particular player?

Sure they do---on that player's induction day. But after that, don't be ridiculous. They go to see the entire Museum, not to see any given plaque. Do you really think that anyone drives all those miles to see one bleeping plaque, and then turns around and drive back home? Not even Margo Adams would do that.

Re-read what I wrote. TIA.

Oops. But of course they do. And have I ever denied that in the first place?

Andy, do you think Hall of Fame attendance would drop if Bonds or McGwire is inducted?

Of course not. But do you think that it would drop if they weren't? Has it dropped in the past two years in the wake of McGwire's obvious blackball? Do you think anyone's saying "Gee, I was going to go to the Hall of Fame, but I changed my mind because I'm steamed that they're blackballing Mark McGwire"?

I repeat: Baseball attendance has increased since the steroid stories have emerged. People claim that this proves that few fans "care about steroids."

But by that same logic: If HOF attendance increases in the wake of a blackball of steroid-associated players, isn't that "proof" that fans are indifferent to any such blackball?

In both cases the logic seems equally dubious, because it defines "caring" in such a narrow sense. Did black people who chose to remain in Mississippi in the Jim Crow era "not care" about racism? Did all those East Berliners who didn't defect to the West before the Berlin Wall was built "not care" about living under a Communist dictatorship? I guess they didn't, by these standards.

Did black people who chose to remain in Mississippi in the Jim Crow era "not care" about racism? Did all those East Berliners who didn't defect to the West before the Berlin Wall was built "not care" about living under a Communist dictatorship? I guess they didn't, by these standards.

Whoa, that's a horrible analogy. Just terrible, my man.

And why is it terrible? I'm not comparing the evils of Jim Crow and Communism to the relatively trivial issues of steroids and HOF blackballs. Do I really need to spell that out?

But I am comparing the idiocy of claiming that inaction in the face of something you may very much "care" about necessarily equals indifference to the subject. And this holds true for Jim Crow as well as steroids.

I don't know about that, Andy. There were plenty of blacks who got slapped around by Jim Crow, but were too poor to leave and/or had no options but to stay down South.

There's no like factors WRT baseball game attendance.

Nobody makes a pilgrimmage to the Hall of Fame just to see any particular plaque.

We almost agree here. I went to see Ted Williams plaque. I took advantage of that to see all the others.

CTD:Are you claiming people don't go to a baseball game to see a particular player?

But of course they do. And have I ever denied that in the first place?

Now, don't get your panties in a bunch because I snipped out the part where you misread the question, and inserted where you recognized your error and responded to what you were asked.

Your analogy denies it. People go to parks to see specific players. They don't do that for Cooperstown. So your analogy breaks down over that.

"Baseball" had a pervasive steroid "problem". The WHOLE GAME. Every team - all the records - everything. So a proper response is that outrage would result in a lower attendance. We've already seen this with work stoppages.

But the HOF allowing or not allowing a particular player in doesn't mean the whole of HOF is thus "tainted" - no more so than the election of a weak player (like Jim Rice). Sure it lessens the HOF (in some eyes), but the HOF is greater than that.

That isn't true of baseball and steroids. The whole game was affected.

I don't know about that, Andy. There were plenty of blacks who got slapped around by Jim Crow, but were too poor to leave and/or had no options but to stay down South.

There's no like factors WRT baseball game attendance.

And what, exactly, prevents people from boycotting the HOF over their outrage at a McGwire blackball?

Again, the point is that NONE of these inactions---"not boycotting" games, "not boycotting" the HOF, "not fleeing" the South, and "not fleeing East Berlin" when all an East Berliner had to do was to hop on the subway and get out at any West Berlin stop---are tantamount to any serious "proof" that the people who weren't taking concrete "action" about their concerns were somehow "not caring" or "indifferent."

As you rightly point out in your Jim Crow example, there are often other factors involved---but they don't have to be physical or financial coercion. In the case of going to the games or to the HOF, it's much more likely that most people don't want to bite off their nose to spite their face.

I care about steroids, but I'll still pay for my Extra Innings package and go to a game or two. At the same time, I doubt seriously if more than a handful of fans are likely to cancel their HOF trips because of a blackball against a juicer like McGwire, even though they feel that McGwire is being wronged.

And that's my only point. There are degrees of "caring" that can't be measured by a single metric like a boycott. And it holds equally true for both sides of the steroid issue.

And it holds equally true for both sides of the steroid issue.

Particularly if you put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalallala can;t hear you lalalalala"

Chris, the whole game was affected by steroids, but the game is "greater than that," too. Which is why I'm not boycotting it. I don't (to quote myself) care to bite off my nose to spite my face.

And with all the verbiage you've spilled about why McGwire and Bonds should be in the HOF, I have a hard time taking seriously your protestations that a steroid blackballing group of HOF writers doesn't cast a big taint on the HOF itself. If you're not pretty steamed about that McGwire blackball, you've sure had a funny way of expressing your alleged indifference.

But you know what? I'm still perfectly willing to grant that you do "care" about the blackball, even if you continue to visit the McGwireless HOF. Because I think that you, being a normal baseball fan like myself, like your nose right where it is. There's nothing wrong with that.

Chris, the whole game was affected by steroids, but the game is "greater than that," too. Which is why I'm not boycotting it. I don't (to quote myself) care to bite off my nose to spite my face.

I am sure you don't. But you don't know/speak for the vast majority of fans, and they *do* stop going to games after a work stoppage. They do. We know this. Because when they care about something that much, that's what they do.

When they care about whether or not the team wins, they stop going. Fans express their displeasure with a team by not buying tickets.

We see it every year - but not with steroids.

Chris, the whole game was affected by steroids, but the game is "greater than that," too. Which is why I'm not boycotting it. I don't (to quote myself) care to bite off my nose to spite my face.

I am sure you don't. But you don't know/speak for the vast majority of fans, and they *do* stop going to games after a work stoppage. They do. We know this. Because when they care about something that much, that's what they do.

When they care about whether or not the team wins, they stop going. Fans express their displeasure with a team by not buying tickets.

We see it every year - but not with steroids.

So the point now is to claim that the fans "care" more about strikes than about steroids?

Well, duh. But who's denying that? Names, please.

And they evidently "care" more about strikes than they "care" about whether the writers are keeping the guy who broke Roger Maris's home run record out of the Hall of Fame. And duh to that, too.

But I guess I should have asked you directly:

Do you think that a significant number of fans "care" that Mark McGwire is being blackballed from the Hall of Fame?

And using your own metric of "caring," do YOU care that an otherwise supremely qualified HOF candidate hasn't even mustered 25% of the vote in two years? And again, using your own definition of "caring," will YOU "care" if by some chance he never gets in?

You can answer "yes, I'd care," or "no, I wouldn't care," and you can explain your answer to your heart's content. In fact, just to show you that I'm not playing gotcha, I'll let your answer to that question be the last word here on the subject.

Do you think that a significant number of fans "care" that Mark McGwire is being blackballed from the Hall of Fame?

Well, he's got another 13 years, so I'm not sold on "blackballed".

And using your own metric of "caring," do YOU care that an otherwise supremely qualified HOF candidate hasn't even mustered 25% of the vote in two years? And again, using your own definition of "caring," will YOU "care" if by some chance he never gets in?

I won't care, but that's because I don't care. I think it is fun to debate a player's merits of a HOF, but there are already so many players in the HOF that I would never put in, McGwire's ommission isn't a straw breaking a camels back - I have enough didain for how those morons have performed their job as it is, so that they #### up another vote doesn't change where I stand on the HOF.

There are a few things that separate these supposedly comparable scenarios. The most blatant one would be the fact that one of them has happened, and the other hasn't. MLB attendance has already gone up during the peak of the public's alleged steroid "outrage." Conflating that with something that hasn't even had the chance to happen and will require multiple "if-then"s is dippy: Bonds/Clemens/whoever gets blackballed beginning in 2013, after which HoF attendance stays steady due to widespread future non-outrage about the BBWAA's past exercise of outrage, followed by what's described as inevitable minority counteroutrage in response to the majority's non-outrage.

The first circumstance may be meaningless as a scientific measurement of cultural morality, but at least has the virtue of being straightforward. The second scenario is strange and convoluted. It requires certain participants to care a lot... then not care... then care... she's my sister... (slap) my daughter... (slap) my sister...

To the extent that the increased attendance *is* a reflection of the fans' indifference and/or approval of steroids, it shoots down the premise. And to the extent attendance doesn't reflect steroids at all, well, what the hell's the point of the speculative comparison?

It's easy to imagine a fan skipping a game (or a team) because of their moral or aesthetic distaste for the steroid saga. We were told that it *would* happen, and people have claimed that it *has* happened. It's a lot weirder to concoct a likeminded fan who declines to visit Cooperstown, New York after a Bonds is elected in order to dramatize their opposition to others' outrageous agnosticism about steroid use. Or conversely, to cook up a fan who waits until Bonds is shut out so they can finally visit the Hall just to demonstrate their support of the last remaining pocket of outrage.

After equating an established circumstance with an odd hypothetical, and comparing public fan reaction with a closed media vote, Andy implied (back in #3) that the parallels will expose the least perturbed steroid side as the hypocrites they are. And yeah, I got an ice cream headache typing that sentence, so I apologize for making anyone read it.

This is striking me as "silly in, silly out."

One final wrinkle that makes the two scenarios even more incompatible is that Cooperstown's annual attendance is about the same as an extended homestand at Miller Park. The MLB/HoF attendance ratio is greater than 225:1. (Although if Future Bob Feller does stay away from McGwire's/Clemens'/Barry's/LoDuca's HoF ceremony as he has promised, it'll have a disproportionate statistical impact.)

And what, exactly, prevents people from boycotting the HOF over their outrage at a McGwire blackball?

Nothing. And as you say, it's meaningless — but that didn't stop you from using it as an attack point. You're trying too hard on this one.