Baseball darkest moments?

[Joe Williams]

He was drummed out?

Well, my understanding was that he was considered something of a pariah and the Lords of Baseball did not like what he was pushing for. The time he spent away from the game fighting the good fight hurt his skills, and by the time he came back with the Senators, he wasn't the player he had been, not even close.

So I'll just go with, "the way his career was ended prematurely by taking on Big Baseball."

Still pretty dark turn of events, for a guy who was only pushing for a right that soon came to (and enriched) a lot of players a few years later.

 

[old_tony]

What was baseball's darkest moment? I'm not talking about something that happened over time, like the color line. I'm thinking in real time here: At what exact moment did baseball experience its darkest hour?

Here's a few I can think of:

* Hugh Fullerton's first story about the 1919 fix hitting the press.

* Bart Giamatti's press conference about Pete Rose's gambling.

* The cancelling of the 1994 season

* The death of Ray Chapman or Roberto Clemente (Thurman Munson?)

* The announcement of the Pittsburgh drug trials in 1985

* Announcement of collusion damages in 1988 (and beyond)

*Cap Anson's refusal to play a team with blacks sure didn't help

Any others that come to mind? What was baseball's darkest moment?

* When baseball settled a labor deal in 2005 that did not include salary cap. Pretty much assured baseball would go in this direction for the succeeding decade. The occasional quirk (Reds, Padres, Rays) does not and will not change the fact that the World Series title remains the province of a few rich, huge-market teams.

By "in this direction" do you mean record attendance and record revenues and record profits?

And being left in the dust by the NFL. Yeah.

All is not hunky-dory in Goodell-land, despite your wishes.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=144706

At least 11 NFL teams could be facing TV blackouts in their home markets as the NFL fights through a downward trend in stadium attendance.

 

[steveu]

Which shoots holes in the football argument that "every seat is filled for every game".

MLB and NFL attendance has dropped in some cities because of a little thing spelled e-c-o-n-o-m-y. Both sports are still quite popular, but there are limits for even some fans.

 

[Ilmago]

Here's Johnson's quote

http://www.faniq.com/article/Randy-Johnson-says-its-more-than-possible-he-might-have-taken-banned-substances-before-MLB-testing-started-1757558

"I took a lot of different things that, you know, maybe at that time, maybe early enough if I would've been tested, who knows?"

I typed in "Randy Johnson admission" into Google, and found only this article. Is it legit? If so, why hasn't the mainstream media latched on to such a hot story of a sure fire HOF superstar all but admitting PED usage? Especially when they endlessly try to dig up steroid connections on some players in which there are none yet. Example - 2 different media sources made up steroid stories about Pujols that were both proven to be untrue (that his trainer was mentioned in the Grimsley report and that his name was on the Mitchel Report), but this near admission flies under the radar? Slander some without proof, then ignore stories with some credible meat to them? I would say it has something to do with the fact that Johnson doesn't hit homeruns, but there was Clemens. Then I though there is maybe a racial bias. But then there is Clemens. Maybe the media hates homerun hitters, minorities, and... Roger Clemens? Just a little satire there - for laughs, of course.

Maybe everybody (media included) is just bored with the whole steroid thing any everybody is ready to move on? Maybe certain writers have run out of creative ways to say that steroids ruined an innocent game.

I have no idea if Johnson did anything or not and will give him the benefit of the doubt, but lets sit back and wait for a few who have criminalized certain players over less specific information (Bagwell, Pujols, Piazza, I-Rod) to defend their boyhood hero. They will give him the benefit of the doubt that he really did not know any better, when they said the same excuse was bologna when other players used it. That is the problem - consistency. This is why a stadium full of Cardinal fans can boo the snot out of Manny in one series can give standing ovations to Ankiel, Franklin, and Glaus the next. Consistency is all I want to see, regardless of your stance on steroids.

 

[JC]

Here's Johnson's quote

http://www.faniq.com/article/Randy-Johnson-says-its-more-than-possible-he-might-have-taken-banned-substances-before-MLB-testing-started-1757558

"I took a lot of different things that, you know, maybe at that time, maybe early enough if I would've been tested, who knows?"

I typed in "Randy Johnson admission" into Google, and found only this article. Is it legit? If so, why hasn't the mainstream media latched on to such a hot story of a sure fire HOF superstar all but admitting PED usage? Especially when they endlessly try to dig up steroid connections on some players in which there are none yet. Example - 2 different media sources made up steroid stories about Pujols that were both proven to be untrue (that his trainer was mentioned in the Grimsley report and that his name was on the Mitchel Report), but this near admission flies under the radar? Slander some without proof, then ignore stories with some credible meat to them? I would say it has something to do with the fact that Johnson doesn't hit homeruns, but there was Clemens. Then I though there is maybe a racial bias. But then there is Clemens. Maybe the media hates homerun hitters, minorities, and... Roger Clemens? Just a little satire there - for laughs, of course.

Maybe everybody (media included) is just bored with the whole steroid thing any everybody is ready to move on? Maybe certain writers have run out of creative ways to say that steroids ruined an innocent game.

I have no idea if Johnson did anything or not and will give him the benefit of the doubt, but lets sit back and wait for a few who have criminalized certain players over less specific information (Bagwell, Pujols, Piazza, I-Rod) to defend their boyhood hero. They will give him the benefit of the doubt that he really did not know any better, when they said the same excuse was bologna when other players used it. That is the problem - consistency. This is why a stadium full of Cardinal fans can boo the snot out of Manny in one series can give standing ovations to Ankiel, Franklin, and Glaus the next. Consistency is all I want to see, regardless of your stance on steroids.

He admits to taking a lot of different things that he might test positive for and you still give him the benefit of the doubt? That's your preogative if you want to live in naive land.

And if you really believe that Irod, Piazza and Bagwell didn't take PED's I have some nice land in Detroit for you to buy.

 

[BTExpress]

Thirty years ago when those 42 million people watched the WS, how many viewing choices did they have?

Not many, but if you are "popular" it shouldn't matter.

Super Bowl ratings dropped only a tiny amount (from 47 to 42) from 1980 to 2010.

WS ratings dropped from 32 to 11.

In other words, the public's message to baseball is, "Give us something --- anything --- else to watch, and we will flee."

 

[Starman]

Which shoots holes in the football argument that "every seat is filled for every game".

MLB and NFL attendance has dropped in some cities because of a little thing spelled e-c-o-n-o-m-y. Both sports are still quite popular, but there are limits for even some fans.

Professional sports owners need to break out their dusty old economics books they never looked at in college and review the chapter on supply and demand determining prices.

Pro sports owners have always operated on the equation, "when my costs go up, I get to raise prices."

Sure you do. But that doesn't mean the customers have to buy.

Want to sell those seats?

LOWER YOUR PRICES.

Hell, if you have to, give them away free. One incontrovertible law of sports marketing: An empty seat never buys a hot dog and a beer.

Maybe everybody (media included) is just bored with the whole steroid thing any everybody is ready to move on? Maybe certain writers have run out of creative ways to say that steroids ruined an innocent game.

Ahhhhhhhh, bull****, before steroids we had cocaine, before cocaine we had greenies, before greenies we had corked bats, doctored pitches, sign-stealing, lethal beanballs, systematic racism, collusion, virtual-slavery player contracts, game-fixing, for 70+ years now we've had franchise owners extorting taxpayers for stadiums, etc etc.

The game hasn't been "innocent" since the 1860s.

 

[BTExpress]

Pro sports owners have always operated on the equation, "when my costs go up on days that end in 'y', I get to raise prices."

 

[LongTimeListener]

Thirty years ago when those 42 million people watched the WS, how many viewing choices did they have?

Not many, but if you are "popular" it shouldn't matter.

Super Bowl ratings dropped only a tiny amount (from 47 to 42) from 1980 to 2010.

WS ratings dropped from 32 to 11.

In other words, the public's message to baseball is, "Give us something --- anything --- else to watch, and we will flee."

Do you think that's the public's aversion to baseball, or to the World Series specifically? I watch probably 80 games a year, set my schedule to my team whenever I can. And if my boys are not in it, I just cannot bear to sit through a four-hour game narrated by Joe Buck. The commercials and the delays have bastardized postseason baseball to the point that it isn't enjoyable.

 

[cranberry]

In the past 10 years baseball has more than doubled its revenue to $6.8 billion. Not bad for such a dark moment in time.

 

[BTExpress]

The commercials and the delays have bastardized postseason baseball to the point that it isn't enjoyable.

That's pretty much what killed it for me.

There simply should not be time for 12 different camera shots in between pitches, alternating between pitcher, fans, batter and managers.

Game 7, 1960: 19 runs, 24 hits, 7 pitching changes . . . played in 2:36.

Game 2, 2009: 4 runs, 14 hits, 4 pitching changes . . . played in 3:25.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Ilmago]

He admits to taking a lot of different things that he might test positive for and you still give him the benefit of the doubt? That's your preogative if you want to live in naive land.

And if you really believe that Irod, Piazza and Bagwell didn't take PED's I have some nice land in Detroit for you to buy.

I made no comments or judgements on either Johnson, Pizza, etc. or steroids in any way. I was obviously mocking the media's perception of "innocence" as well. Please read my posts again - but with the satiricle spin intended.

I already said that I do not doubt Johnson. I am only questioning the media/some fan's lack of interest in this story, but when even less incriminaring info. comes out regarding some players - they pounce on the story like a jaguar on a mule.

 

[Twoback]

Nobody is saying the sport isn't healthy, cran. Slanted to favor some teams over others? Definitely. But still healthy.

it's also slanted to allow teams like the Pirates and Marlins to make a huge profit without investing a damn thing in their teams. I doubt that teams like those event want a salary cap.

Perhaps their crap owners don't.
But their fans do.
And Cran, saying baseball is more popular than it's ever been is the same as saying the American economy is stronger than it was in 1999 because the GDP is higher. People go to games more now for a lot of reasons, and the actual baseball is less of that reason than it's ever been.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Thirty years ago when those 42 million people watched the WS, how many viewing choices did they have?

Not many, but if you are "popular" it shouldn't matter.

Super Bowl ratings dropped only a tiny amount (from 47 to 42) from 1980 to 2010.

WS ratings dropped from 32 to 11.

In other words, the public's message to baseball is, "Give us something --- anything --- else to watch, and we will flee."

So they reject games on free TV, but pay for tickets and $7 beers? I'm guessing that's OK with the owners.