MLB HOF voting results

[-Jrabbit]

Well, population continues to grow and prices continue to rise, so that's not much of a claim.

Popularity relative to other sports over the last 50 years tells a very different story.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And in that, baseball continues to excel. I remember all those discussions in the 90s that basketball was about to overtake baseball in the next 10 years. If anything baseball has increased its lead over basketball. American Football is #1, but Baseball is a firmly entrenched #2.

[MRT144]

Deal! And if not, I'll.... take to you an arena football game of your choice?

After all, baseball has never been more popular attendance wise and money wise.

Please, we all know Arena football is best enjoyed by someone else watching it on ESPN3

[-Jrabbit]

And in that, baseball continues to excel. I remember all those discussions in the 90s that basketball was about to overtake baseball in the next 10 years. If anything baseball has increased its lead over basketball. American Football is #1, but Baseball is a firmly entrenched #2.

Fair enough, but my statement regarding population growth vs. attendance (not to mention ticket prices vs. revenues), stands.

[SlowwHand]

"Greenies" may have been frowned on to a varying degree, but to compare them to PED and the stated penalties in advance, lying to Congress and on and on, is ridiculous.

[rah]

Cheating is Cheating. On the legal side, I'll agree that lying to Congress is worse but only a small percentage of PED users have had that opportunity,

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed. This weaseling on amphetamines is ridiculous. It obviously had a greater effect on the game than steroids, but since peoples' heroes did amphetamines, they want to weasel out of it. How Clintonian of you, Slow.

[Ben Kenobi]

If "being a ****" made you HOF eligible, Kent would already be in. I'm actually surprised the Rocket is getting the same treatment.

[SlowwHand]

Indeed. This weaseling on amphetamines is ridiculous. It obviously had a greater effect on the game than steroids, but since peoples' heroes did amphetamines, they want to weasel out of it. How Clintonian of you, Slow.

Your retarded comment has nothing to do with what I said. The rules were not as strict and no testing was done. DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, yeah, whatever weasel.

Next you'll be telling me that it doesn't matter that neither Bonds nor Clemens failed a drug test. If testing being done is so important...

[SlowwHand]

Have the opinion that you want. I don't really care.

How pervasive were "greenies" in baseball?
Many steroid apologists compare them to amphetamines. The difference is pointed out: "greenies" gave you a boost, steroids made you a completely different player.

[rah]

Cheaters=cheaters in my book. It's silly to have to decide just how much cheating is Ok and how much is not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I love the amphetamine apologists. In a 162 game season, a drug that could counter your exhaustion is a huge deal. Like I said, when steroids were banned, numbers didn't dip. When amphetamines were banned (a year later), offensive numbers plummeted - to the new normal we are in now.

[Ben Kenobi]

when steroids were banned, numbers didn't dip

Uh, home run chase anyone?

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-steroids-were-never-real-problem-in-baseball_p2/

For all intents and purposes, the first year of widespread testing for steroids was 2005. If the accepted logic that steroids equal more home runs is true, production in that area should have dropped off dramatically in 2006, right? Well, it didn't. In 2005, teams across both leagues hit an average of 167 home runs and scored 744 runs. While that was indeed a steep decline from the previous year's numbers, it didn't stay that way. In 2006, those totals increased to an average of 179 home runs and 787 runs scored, which is about where they were the year testing for steroids began. A full year removed from that monumental moment in baseball history, things seemed to actually get better for home run hitters. Just a reminder, the majority of performance-enhancing drug suspensions have been pitchers. Draw your own conclusions.

Meanwhile, the league finally got around to mandatory testing for amphetamines in 2006. Can you guess what happened next?

Instead of focusing on home runs, as so much of the PED debate does, let's look at the meat and potatoes stuff, hits and strikeouts. From 2004 to 2005, production in both areas dropped. Again, 2005 was the first year of actual steroid testing. The next year, things basically recovered for both sides at about the same rate. It was as if banning steroids had no real effect at all. After amphetamines, though? Things haven't just tilted in favor of pitchers, it's been a veritable golden age of expert pitching.

Total hits in 2006, the first year of mandatory amphetamine testing, were at 45,073. They've dropped every single year since amphetamines were banned. Again, they went down and back up again after steroids. The drop since amphetamines were banned, though, has been noticeable and drastic. In 2012, the total was just 42,063.

As for strikeouts, in 2006, there were 31,655. Just as hits have continuously gone down, strikeouts have gone up almost every single year since 2006. There were 36,426 in 2012.

If that doesn't do anything for you, consider the fact that of the 23 perfect games (meaning no one on the opposing team even reaches first base) thrown by pitchers in major league history, 17 of them happened between 1880 and 2004. That's 124 years. Perfect games used to come around with the frequency of visible comets in the night sky.

Now, ask me how many perfect games there have been since 2006. Six! And when I say "since 2006" what I actually mean is "since 2009." There were two in 2010 alone, which seemed mighty impressive until there were three in 2012. At that pace, after 124 years there will have been 186 perfect games thrown. What in the mother**** is happening?

The explanation is pretty simple and obvious. Hitting a major league pitch is something the majority of Americans can't do at their most awake and alert. Position players take the field every single day, which is naturally going to tire out any athlete (especially if you routinely spend the night before games getting hammered). For decades, players have been able to fight that fatigue with amphetamines. Sure, they won't help you hit the ball harder, but if those pills are the difference between mentally alert or tired as hell, their benefit at the plate is undeniable. Hitters aren't less productive because they can't take steroids anymore, they're less productive because they can barely stay awake.

Pitchers, on the other hand, generally get lots of rest between appearances, making the energy boost from amphetamines less helpful or necessary. For the everyday player though, losing that amphetamine boost has been a disaster. Oh, and in case you're wondering, there were 5,386 home runs in 2006. In 2012, just 4,934.

Coincidentally, since amphetamines were banned, the rate of diagnosis for ADHD in baseball has skyrocketed to twice the national average, resulting in hundreds of players each year receiving exemptions to take drugs like Adderall, which, of course, are basically amphetamines. Imagine that.

So what does all this mean? Well, if amphetamines really do have the impact on hitting that the statistics seem to indicate, and if the steroid era really didn't start until sometime in the '90s, doesn't every record set when hitters had the benefit of using amphetamines but pitchers didn't have the benefit of using steroids deserve the same asterisk we're so eager to affix to the steroid-era records? If amphetamines have really been around for seven or eight decades like Bud Selig says, that covers everything from Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak to Pete Rose's all time hits record and everything in between.