Bill James on "Cooperstown & the `roids"

[Vic Sage]

The great man finally speaks on the topic:

http://www.actapublications.com/images/small/PressReleases/Cooperstownandthe%27Roids_F2.pdf

[ashie62]

Well, thats an interesting take..very heady.

[Guest Edgy DC]

He absolutely danced around even the existence of steroids in The New Bill James Historical Abstract, using all sorts of other explanations to explain the offensive outburst of the nineties. At one point, I think, explaining some player, he threw up his hands, more willing to delare the matter inexplicable than to introduce the possilbitiy of PEDs.

Now he appears to be of a mind with Canseco.

[ashie62]

="Edgy DC":iepfhz1q]He absolutely danced around even the existence of steroids in The New Bill James Historical Abstract, using all sorts of other explanations to explain the offensive outburst of the nineties. At one point, I think, explaining some player, he threw up his hands, more willing to delare the matter inexplicable than to introduce the possilbitiy of PEDs. Now he appears to be of a mind with Canseco.[/quote:iepfhz1q] It also reminds me of an explanation Spock would give on the issue to a bulked up Kirk

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 24 2009 11:49 AM

Well, I'd hope against pills allowing everyone to live to age 300. I do think he's right that the epidemic will have to be viewed as inseparable from the game itself, and not cheating so much as playing the game the way it was played at the time. I also liked Will Clark.

Valadius Jul 24 2009 01:10 PM

I most agree with the second argument. The first argument is batshit crazy.

Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 01:35 PM

Putting aside the brave new world aspects of the argument, the first two argumetns resemble each other. They're about normalization. When drug enhanced lives become more common in our culture it'll become less of an impulse to define drug-enchanged baseball players as deviants. Simlarly when some drug enhanced players enter the Hall of Fame, it'll become less of an impulse to define drug-enchanged baseball players as deviants. He deals in what he expects will happen and explicitly sidesteps what ought to happen. But he gets that in by implication. Seemingly he suggests that surrendering to history is inevitable, therefore as ethical a choice as can be made. I guess we should surrender forthwith, but I don't wanna.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 01:37 PM

His first argument kinda-sorta holds, but only if you strike "steroids" and substitute "HGH;" even then, it's a little problematic. As it stands... well... "full of shit" comes more readily to mind than "batshit." It's like he's tossing it out there as a warmup, as he realizes it's the most out-there. The second-through-fourth arguments are fairly convincing. The fifth is damning, and would be a lot more effective... if the voting body weren't, you know, guys who-- as a majority-- professionally take the morality of the game (including its "unwritten rules") a bit too seriously, and have no problem sitting in judgement of MLB as well as its players. I thought Will Clark was alright until I heard some of the locker-room stories-- he wasn't exactlya writer's favorite, apparently).

Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 01:53 PM

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":v1qs82h7]I thought Will Clark was alright until I heard some of the locker-room stories-- he wasn't exactlya writer's favorite,[/url:v1qs82h7] apparently[/url:v1qs82h7]).[/quote:v1qs82h7] How fitting that, at the end of that second link comes 13-year-old news that a Met has been injured. Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 02:50 PM Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player." Advantage Pearlman. MFS62 Jul 24 2009 02:57 PM It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later Valadius Jul 24 2009 02:59 PM I remember that. I was only a kid then, and it didn't seem like such a big deal to me at the time. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:13 PM ="Farmer Ted":3fd2b9ch]Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player." Advantage Pearlman.[/quote:3fd2b9ch] Hey, to be fair, Castro didn't hang Rocker out to dry or nothing. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:02 PM ="MFS62":3bivg232]It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later[/quote:3bivg232] I think his prose is historically more illuminating than his statistical work. Fman99 Jul 24 2009 08:08 PM

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Well, I'd hope against pills allowing everyone to live to age 300. I do think he's right that the epidemic will have to be viewed as inseparable from the game itself, and not cheating so much as playing the game the way it was played at the time. I also liked Will Clark.

[Valadius]

I most agree with the second argument. The first argument is batshit crazy.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Putting aside the brave new world aspects of the argument, the first two argumetns resemble each other. They're about normalization. When drug enhanced lives become more common in our culture it'll become less of an impulse to define drug-enchanged baseball players as deviants.

Simlarly when some drug enhanced players enter the Hall of Fame, it'll become less of an impulse to define drug-enchanged baseball players as deviants.

He deals in what he expects will happen and explicitly sidesteps what ought to happen. But he gets that in by implication. Seemingly he suggests that surrendering to history is inevitable, therefore as ethical a choice as can be made. I guess we should surrender forthwith, but I don't wanna.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

His first argument kinda-sorta holds, but only if you strike "steroids" and substitute "HGH;" even then, it's a little problematic. As it stands... well... "full of shit" comes more readily to mind than "batshit." It's like he's tossing it out there as a warmup, as he realizes it's the most out-there.

The second-through-fourth arguments are fairly convincing. The fifth is damning, and would be a lot more effective... if the voting body weren't, you know, guys who-- as a majority-- professionally take the morality of the game (including its "unwritten rules") a bit too seriously, and have no problem sitting in judgement of MLB as well as its players.

I thought Will Clark was alright until I heard some of the locker-room stories-- he wasn't exactlya writer's favorite, apparently).

[Guest Edgy DC]

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":v1qs82h7]I thought Will Clark was alright until I heard some of the locker-room stories-- he wasn't exactlya writer's favorite,[/url:v1qs82h7] apparently[/url:v1qs82h7]).[/quote:v1qs82h7] How fitting that, at the end of that second link comes 13-year-old news that a Met has been injured.

Farmer Ted Jul 24 2009 02:50 PM

Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player." Advantage Pearlman.

MFS62 Jul 24 2009 02:57 PM

It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later

Valadius Jul 24 2009 02:59 PM

I remember that. I was only a kid then, and it didn't seem like such a big deal to me at the time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 24 2009 03:13 PM

="Farmer Ted":3fd2b9ch]Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player." Advantage Pearlman.[/quote:3fd2b9ch] Hey, to be fair, Castro didn't hang Rocker out to dry or nothing. Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:02 PM ="MFS62":3bivg232]It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later[/quote:3bivg232] I think his prose is historically more illuminating than his statistical work. Fman99 Jul 24 2009 08:08 PM

[Farmer Ted]

Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player."

Advantage Pearlman.

[MFS62]

It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers.

Later

[Valadius]

I remember that. I was only a kid then, and it didn't seem like such a big deal to me at the time.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="Farmer Ted":3fd2b9ch]Does anyone recall the controversy several years ago when the Orioles played Cuba in an exhibition game? It was a State Department nightmare and had Little Havana going crazy. Will Clark was interviewed before the game and asked about playing Fidel's finest and the implications of giving credence to Castro and his human rights atrocities. Clark's response, "Hey, I'm just a ball player." Advantage Pearlman.[/quote:3fd2b9ch] Hey, to be fair, Castro didn't hang Rocker out to dry or nothing.

Edgy DC Jul 24 2009 05:02 PM

="MFS62":3bivg232]It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later[/quote:3bivg232] I think his prose is historically more illuminating than his statistical work. Fman99 Jul 24 2009 08:08 PM

[Guest Edgy DC]

="MFS62":3bivg232]It doesn't seem the same when Bill James speaks without numbers. Later[/quote:3bivg232] I think his prose is historically more illuminating than his statistical work.

Fman99 Jul 24 2009 08:08 PM

[Fman99]