We recently ran a poll asking our readers, Did Steroids Make Baseball Better?
We posted the poll after news broke that Manny Ramirez was suspended for using Performance Enhancing drugs. Though he wasn't using steroids, it did make for a simpler headline and at this point we all use the words steroids and Performance-Enhancing drugs as a reference for the same thing, using banned substances to boost performance.
Poll Results
35 people voted in the poll and the outcome was near evenly divided. In the end, the voters decided by a slim margin that steroids did not make baseball better, with the final tally coming in at 19 to 16.
Did Steroids Make Baseball Better?
- No (54%, 19 Votes)
- Yes (46%, 16 Votes)
Total Voters: 35
Here's some thoughts from the comments section (links are to that commenter's blog, twitter account or to the original comment, in that order):
I’m not ready to say it made the sport better but i think it definatley caried it out of a slump and made it more relevent to none baseball fans.
Thinking about this from another angle; baseball is just a profitable game. So what difference does it make what players do to their bodies? If people knew exactly what went on in locker rooms & doctor’s offices & etc, would they suddenly stop going to watch baseball games? Or stop buying team merchandise? And if yes, would the players care enough about the loss of revenue (which pays their salaries) to scale back on the use of chemical advantage? Or are they playing for themselves, for the feeling of winning, and pushing themselves beyond their own limits?
it didn’t make the game better it made it more buzz worthy for the pink hats of the world, with all the dingers.
cheeeseisgood:
I voted yes and feel semi-guilty for doing so
There you have it folks, the fans decided (barely) that steroids did not make baseball better. Make sure to vote in our latest poll, Should Manny Ramirez be Allowed to Play in the 2009 All-Star Game?, which ends June 31st, just before midnight [EST]. Make your voice heard!
Give this article a standing ovation? Tell the world below!
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Pretty interesting. I was one of the people that said it made it better. I feel that if it wasn’t for players using steroids, the game may have never recovered from the ‘94 strike. The Sosa/McGwire home run chases captured a nation and brought baseball back to the forefront of America’s consciousness. However, the inflated numbers have pretty much desecrated some of baseball’s most hallowed records, which in the end could destroy the game.
Eddie, I think you’re partly right about steroids and the home run mania helping push baseball out of the strike and back into the mainstream audience. It certainly added excitement to some fans to see all the home runs and big scores.
But, I think your second point is even more valid. The inflated numbers have made it very tough to compare eras and might have tarnished the legacy of baseball a bit. Of course, it makes for great TV and sports writing to be able to debate the different eras, which I’m sure the MLB loves as it generates buzz for them. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
More from author
This is a topic that will constantly have people arguing back and forth over for years. Any record that involves power numbers will be scrutinized and combed through with the “did he or didn’t” during the era of time where PED use was prevalent.
There are the purists out there that don’t enjoy the power game aspect of the sport and all the inflated power numbers are tarnished and probably feel they shouldn’t be kept as records, or have it recorded that there was cheating involved. Then there are those that enjoy the game the way it is with huge homeruns, guys whose only job on a team is to hit the ball (the DH).
Just like any business the customer knows what they want and what they like. MLB is a business and if huge homeruns and 15-10 games are what the majority enjoys and they continue to buy tickets then it is going to be what it is. Records that are broken need to be investigated and if found to have had a stretch where they were using PED (which weren’t against MLB’s rules at the time) then it needs to be noted.
Or eveyone needs to take them and then we’re back on a level playing field.
More from author
You’re right Matt, this debate will rage on for a long, long time.
It’d be tough to retroactively pick out who was and wasn’t using so I’m afraid the record books are probably permanently tainted.
As for your last line, that’d be quite the Public Relations nightmare:
“MLB forces players to do drugs”
Would love to see the bonanza that would erupt from that press release!
More from author
The poll results are in, Steroids Did NOT Make Baseball Better http://bit.ly/ngbpx
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
More from author