I believe the industry term for this is "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH"

Pass.

I approve of posts 1 and 2.

The essay also discussed classic cases of under-achievement and cited Ozzie Smith’s 1979 season, when he managed to get on base 49 fewer times than his lifetime average, which was particularly strange since Smith was in mid career at that point.

I wouldn't consider a player's second season out of 19 to be "mid-career."

Q: Using various statistics over a player’s lifetime, and comparing them to “league norms,” is it possible to determine which players may have used steroids?

A: Absolutely not, no. The problem is that many different causes can have the same effects. If a player used steroids, this could cause his home run total to explode at an advanced age — but so could weight training, Lasix surgery, better bats, playing in a different park, a great hitting coach, or a good divorce. It is almost always impossible to infer specific causes from general effects.

-Bill James, April 1, 2008; NY Times "Freakonomics: Bill James Answers All Your Baseball Questions"

Maybe I’ve been on Mars, but I’ve never heard Puckett’s name mentioned in the conversation about performance-enhancing drugs.

I haven't read James's piece, but I wonder if he was trying to subtly make the point that the entire steroids discussion is ridiculous, because -- like the comment I'm quoting above -- people think evidence consists of whether the player's "name has been mentioned in the conversation of performance-enhancing drugs."

There's as much evidence that Puckett and Gaetti did steroids as there is that Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez, and Sammy Sosa did steroids. So why do people accept the latter suggestion but get offended by the former?

I think that may have been James's point here.

It’s one thing to have personal opinions which never see the light of day, but publishing these things about Gaetti and Puckett — without concrete evidence, i.e., more than the citation of statistical anomalies — is irresponsible

This is laugable, considering that accusing people without concrete evidence has been the entire modus operandi of the anti-steroids zealots. Why are people suddenly getting upset about that? Why are people suddenly concerned just because it's Puckett and Gaetti in the cross hairs?

There's as much evidence that Puckett and Gaetti did steroids as there is that Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez, and Sammy Sosa did steroids. So why do people accept -- even believe -- the latter suggestion but get offended by the former?

It used to be people looked for sudden power spikes to cast steroid suspicion, like Anderson and Gonzalez hitting 50 and never coming remotely close to that number before or after. Gary Gaetti thought he could hid by doing the opposite and hitting just 5 in a full season (weirder than Puckett, since he had already established himself as a 20+ homer man). But he can't hide forever. James is onto him.

Remember, you heard it here first...

I agree with both sides: no one should publish such allegations without some actual evidence AND there is just as much evidence that Gaetti and Puckett used PEDS as Sosa and several others who many of the anti-PED folks take for granted did.

If you'd like to criticize James for what he wrote, you'd better not have ever written, or agreed with, accusations against 90s sluggers who have no actual ties to PEDs.

I think it took someone accusing my deified childhood hero (Puckett) for me to truly understand the steroid furor. Three+ years of thus garbage and now I care for the first time.

Kirby Puckett was a classic "look at his head!" player before looking at players' heads was cool.

Could any of the board's resident scientists cite the latest studies linking PED abuse to glaucoma, blood clotting, lupus, cancer, ALS, vertigo, and multi-fingerism? I've always suspected those unindicted cheats Puckett, J.R. Richard, Raines, Strawberry, Catfish, Esasky, and Alfonseca. And Addie Joss, I haven't forgotten about you, either.

Q: Has looking at the numbers prevented you from actually just enjoying a summer day at the ballpark? Have we all forgotten the randomness of human ballplayers? By reducing players to just their numbers can we lose sight of the intangibles such as teamwork, friendships, and desire[?].
A (Bill James): Does looking at pretty women prevent one from experiencing love? Life is complicated. Your efforts to compartmentalize it are lame and useless.

creating a gathering place called Puckett Plaza

Will this be in a women's restroom or out in front of one?

I wouldn't consider a player's second season out of 19 to be "mid-career."

Um...

The essay also discussed classic cases of under-achievement and cited Ozzie Smith’s 1979 season, when he managed to get on base 49 fewer times than his lifetime average, which was particularly strange since Smith was in mid career at that point.

Looks like the "...mid career" part has been edited out.

Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone, but isn't the joke here that James is implying that Gaetti and Puckett used steroids because they didn't hit home runs and had terrible years? It's a throwaway joke, people. He's not making an accusation, he's having a weird kind of laugh.

Hello? Irony?

You know what other championship team was aided by their players taking steroids?

ALL OF THEM IN THE LAST TWO DECADES!

You know what other championship team was aided by their players taking steroids?

ALL OF THEM IN THE LAST TWO DECADES!

Two decades? Try four or five.

Bill James is Moron!

#19 - I think you're right, Ray. The last 25 years or so are when I believe steroids became rampant, but I have little doubt that players have been experimenting with them as long as they've been available.

From AG#1F's link:

Q: How important are good-hitting pitchers to the success of an offense in the N.L.?

A: Exactly as important as good-fitting underwear on a long drive.

That's why I get a kick out of reading Bill James books; not the stats, the writing.

#19 - I think you're right, Ray. The last 25 years or so are when I believe steroids became rampant, but I have little doubt that players have been experimenting with them as long as they've been available.

Okay, but what evidence do we have that steroids became "rampant" only in the last 25 years or so? As far as I can tell, the public suddenly became obsessed with the topic in the 2000s, and then, since the careers of accused/admitted players like Bonds, Canseco, Palmeiro, Caminiti, Sosa, and McGwire stretched back two decades or so, the public decided that that's when baseball players started taking steroids.

Yet, we know that modern anabolic steroids can be traced back at least 75 years, and 50 years ago the FDA approved Dianabol in the United States. Anabolic steroids have been publicly available at least since then, and they in fact made their way into sports long before the 1980s. There were steroids scandals in other sports/venues (weightlifting, the NFL, wrestling, the Olympics) stretching back many decades.

The best guess is probably that steroids didn't arrive in earnest in major league baseball until the 1960s, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing at all special about the 1980s as far as steroids and major league baseball go, and there is no justification for deciding that the mid-1980s was the time period that baseball players suddenly began using steroids in large numbers.

Not even if George Mitchell says so. One of the topic headings of his Report is, laughably, "Early Indications of Steroid Use in Baseball (1988 to August 1998)."

The best guess is probably that steroids didn't arrive in earnest in major league baseball until the 1960s, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing at all special about the 1980s as far as steroids and major league baseball go, and there is no justification for deciding that the mid-1980s was the time period that baseball players suddenly began using steroids in large numbers.

pre 1980's baseball players didn't work out as much as they do nowadays, there was the thought that the extra mass would limit their mobility, that is why a lot of people believe that Steroids didn't become big in baseball until after a few athletes proved that the mass didn't hurt.

Of course guys like Lou Brock, Willie Wilson and Maury Wills who were speedsters may have used it since it was pretty well known that it could help with their skill set.

#19 - I think you're right, Ray.

Now you went and did it. You've made Ray's head bigger than it was after he used steroids.

Forgive me if this is obvious to everyone, but isn't the joke here that James is implying that Gaetti and Puckett used steroids because they didn't hit home runs and had terrible years? It's a throwaway joke, people. He's not making an accusation, he's having a weird kind of laugh.

I read it as 1984 (the year in question) potentially representing their true talent and then steroids contributing to their later home run output. Now I don't know if James was actually serious in his implication, but I thought he was looking at Puckett and Gaetti's improvement from these depths and attributing it to unnatural means.

I gotta say that I always just assumed Puckett was using steroids given his sudden jump in power, his body shape and how no one in baseball was testing for it at the time. I mean, c'mon, why wouldn't he (among many, many others) have used them? Canseco was thought of as a steroid user early on (the chants of 'steroids' rang out back in the late 80's) and any player who didn't at least look at them was, quite frankly, an idiot. Now, once checking into side effects and how they could cause you to die young they'd have to be extreme short term thinkers (which many athletes are) to do them but it is silly to think that 'good guy' players and 'bad guy' players from the 80's didn't use them.

Exactly. Puckett was a good guy who was later revealed as a bad guy. And Canseco is a bad guy turned good guy turned bad guy again. And Hulk Hogan was a bad guy who became a good guy who went nWo 4 Life. The only logical flaw is that nobody has ever accused Hulk Hogan of steroid use.