Naming Names

I have to say, after looking at the front page of the New York Times this morning, I was a little disappointed with the front page. The story itself, "Report Ties Star Players to Baseball's 'Steroids Era' is a good story about the frequent usage and problems with steriods among baseball players, however the graphics really bored me. While this is a great use of infographics, especially with the line graphs of each player's increased home runs or E.R.A. stats around the time they were taking these drugs, I wouldn't expect to see this on a front page.

How do you all feel about a front page with a graph or chart instead of an eye-catching image? At first, I honestly thought the paper was mixed up and the Sports section somehow got put on top of everything else by mistake. The story is also on the front page of the sports section, with a much more vivid image of all of the players accused of taking growth horomones and steroids that compile on top of each other to form a huge baseball bat. While this is more of a feature image, I almost wish something like this was on the front page and the inforgraphics were saved for inside the story. As far as the writing goes, the story is very well written and it is clear NY Times has done its research. They have copies of checks written out to Kirk Radomski for "supplements" with lots of other supporting evidence. The entire packaged is laid out well with lots of stories about suspected trainers, questionable teams and a story about Bud Selig, commissioner of MLB and what he plans to do about this issue.

But if you were not an avid sports fan, would the front page be enough to make you keep reading? Or would an image have been better? I personally think this particular graph should not have been used on the front page. When is it ok to use infographics on the front page for a story and when is it not? Is it ok for the infographics to stand alone as it did in this case of the NYT, or would it have worked better if it accompanied a story?