[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Re the thead title, did Asterix really invent baseball back in ancient Gaul?
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I heard. AIUI, due to the fact that there wasn’t much ashwood for making bats, he instead swatted the ball with a huge obelisk.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
I’m thinking that I’m going to go to the Smithsonian this afternoon and chainsaw the Spirit of St. Louis. I’m sure that that’s OK with you, being as how it belongs to the public, and I’m a member of the public so I want to carve off my piece. Who cares, it’s just history, right?
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t suggest doing that. 
I think the fact that the guy branded the asterik on there is actually intersting as it will show future generations, right or wrong, that steroids was an issue. It is a perfect representation of the perception of the game at this time.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Yes, they were. And three years before Cal Ripken Jr. had been the darling of the press and everyone said HE had saved baseball. 1997 - the year before the McGwire-Sosa chase - was the second best year for attendance in the history of baseball. And it was doing better in 1998 before the record got close. And it’s been doing even better the last few years. Baseball was clearly doing fine before Sosa-McGwire. Look up the attendance figure for 1997 if you don’t believe me.
Look, this is not debatable, it is fact. Baseball was doing better almost every year for decades until after the 1981 and 1994 strikes. Attendance was way down in 1995, and then it started climbing rapidly in 1996. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s the plain truth; baseball is a hugely successful enterprise that makes oodles of money.
If you want to know WHY baseball is doing better, you’d be better off looking at luxurious, taxpayer-funded stadia, rather than roid-pumped sluggers. It’s not a coincidence that attendance spikes have followed new stadia. What was the first team to draw 4,000,000 fans in a season? What did they have at the time?
[/QUOTE]
Tigers got a bright shiny new stadium. Had a strong year attendance wise. Then the team sucked so bad it quickly dwindled. It was not until they built a contender that they could guarantee success. Don’t be so dogmatic. It requires a contending team to fill the seats.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
I think the fact that the guy branded the asterik on there is actually intersting as it will show future generations, right or wrong, that steroids was an issue. It is a perfect representation of the perception of the game at this time.
[/QUOTE]
But the problem is that in absence of anything else, 40 years from now it will be perceived as Barry Bonds took streroids - not half the major leaguers
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
You jest. Sosa and McGwire were the darlings of the press. Sosa and his cute little praying and kissing his medal. McGwire and his huge homeruns. Crap they cut away regular programming to show the homerun battle. No way you convince me they weren’t a huge piece of bringing baseball back.
[/QUOTE]
No one denies they were a media spectacle, but the idea that baseball needed to be “brought back” is ludicrous. Baseball may have been replaced by football as America’s most popular sport, but it is still incredibly popular. Furthermore, just because baseball is no longer clearly the most popular sport in the country like it was prior to the NFL exploding in popularity doesn’t mean that MLB has lost fans over the past few decades. MLB hasn’t, it just hasn’t gained fans as fast as the NFL.
The only real argument that baseball was “hurting” centered around the fact that baseball was arguably no longer as popular as it once was, having been surpassed by football. But there was never much credibility to the argument that baseball was losing fans, that it was on the brink of collapse, that it was facing financial ruin and et cetera. Sure, the strikes hurt–but even the big strike in '94 and the decline in fan attendance only continued for one season after the strike was over.
[On the issue of football being more popular than baseball in America, I’m actually not sure I buy into that. I think football, with its very structured downs, and a clock which forces teams to play at a given clip is more suited to television. The fact that each team is fighting against a clock and thus “big moments” can be predicted someone lends the sport perfectly to television.
While baseball obviously has more live attendance than football many will simply say that is because they play so many games. This is true, but it’s still remarkable that many teams are putting 30,000+ fans in the seats 81 home games a year, not counting playoff games which are typically always sold out (if not always at capacity attendance.) ]
[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
But the problem is that in absence of anything else, 40 years from now it will be perceived as Barry Bonds took streroids - not half the major leaguers
[/QUOTE]
It won’t be in the absence of anything else - not with Clemens coming up for election the same year. Both or neither will make it, but either way, there will have to be a display of his 7 Cy Youngs or something of that sort. McGwire, Palmeiro, perhaps even Canseco will either have plaques or not, but there will be questions either way. The list of top home run hitters by itself will be a reminder.
Forget steroids. That is just what baseball became . The hr records are as legitimate as the sport itself. It just the evolution of the game and as the future performance enhancing drugs are created,they will be used. Just ignore it and lets get on with the season. You have no way of judging how many got away with it.
Is there a picture of the ball online that was taken after its branding? I hope the HOF don’t try to hide the asterisk. If I were the owner I would have stipulated that the ball only goes to the hall if the asterisk is clearly visible when on display.