Twinkie Town: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: MLB Trade Deadline: Where each team stands right now

In Defense of Kirby Puckett


The Twins blogosphere was lit up with a very "ballsy" article penned by TT of Granny Baseball today.  TT asked the question if Kirby Puckett was a steroid abuser.  And despite several comments, including a statistics-based argument from Jesse, it appears that TT is of the belief that not only did Puckett abuse steroids, but that they were a factor in both his glaucoma and his untimely death. 

I decided to do a little research and I strongly believe my findings prove that Puckett's reputation as one of the greatest right-handed hitters ever should remain in tact and that any question of steroid abuse should be laid to rest. 


Continue reading after the jump...

Star-divide

 

When Puckett died in 2006 at the young age of 45, it unfortunately did not come as a surprise to many.  Puckett was easily over 300 pounds, while only 5’8’’ in stature.  It was well-documented that Puckett’s family suffered from a variety of health issues.  Puckett was preceded in death by his parents who both died of heart attacks and by two brothers who also died at incredibly young ages.  Circulatory issues, heart disease and obesity were quite prevalent in Puckett’s family and these issues certainly played a key role in his death. 

 

According to the Phillips Eye Institute, "Puckett had no idea he had a family history of glaucoma. If he had, he could have watched for warning signs and been screened for it." 

WebMD wrote an article after Puckett’s death that discussed that his glaucoma was part of a circulatory disorder present in his entire body...  “An eye problem is representative of a much larger condition affecting the entire body, a systemic condition. In this situation high blood pressure is usually discovered.”  So not only did Puckett have a family history of glaucoma, but he was also at extremely high risk for heart disease, obesity and high blood pressure. 

 

Furthermore, the American Academy of Ophthalmology mentions several interesting racial facts about glaucoma.  In particular, it is most common cause of blindness among African- American individuals.  “Between one and two percent of white Americans 40 years of age or older have glaucoma. However, between five and six percent of black Americans in the same age group have glaucoma. In the age group of 70 years or older, at least one out of ten black persons in the United States has glaucoma. Although African-Americans comprise about 10 percent of the entire population of the United States, they comprise 25% of those affected with glaucoma.”  The Glaucoma Associates of Texas build further on this racial disparity… “African-American individuals tend to develop glaucoma at a much younger age. It would not be surprising for a 30-year-old black person to develop glaucoma, whereas this would be unusual for a 30-year-old white person.”

 

Puckett officially died of a stroke on March 6th, 2006.  The most common causes of a stroke are:  high blood pressure (which also played a large role in his glaucoma), high cholesterol, diabetes (not sure if he suffered from this), poor nutrition, lack of physical activity and obesity.  Considering that Puckett was suffering from at least 5 of the 6 major causes AND had a history of health issues, there certainly was reason for concern from family and friends prior to his death.    

 

TT mentions that steroids can increase the risks for both strokes and glaucoma.  This is correct.  Several studies have proven that this is the case, however, most also reference the fact that the user needs to generally be a consistent abuser.  So if we recall Puckett’s health history, we can see that steroid abuse could have played a key role in both of his glaucoma and stroke… if he were a constant abuser. 

 

So now we need to look at the stats. 

 

TT brings up the point that Puckett basically came out of nowhere to hit 31 homeruns in 1986 and 28 more in 1987 after accumulating only four in the previous two years.  There are a couple things to remember here.  From 1977 – 1992, the 1985 – 87 years stick out as a “juiced ball” period.  Well Puckett only hit 4 homeruns in 1985, but then famously changed his batting style in the offseason while working closely with Tony Oliva to gain more power from driving the ball.  Not surprisingly, Puckett basically became Oliva Jr. – a high average hitter, with a little speed and a little pop who didn’t walk too much.  In fact, if you look at their career 162-game averages, they are almost identical. 

 

Puckett: .318/.360/.477    

Oliva: .304/.353/.476

 

But how could Oliva adjust Puckett’s swing so greatly that he was able to hit 31 homeruns in 1986?  If you look at Puckett’s minor league track record, I don’t think it really is that surprisingly that he grew into the player that ultimately made him a Hall-of-Famer.  Puckett was a bit older for rookie ball and it definitely showed.  At 22, he hit an incredible .382/.438/.491.  The following season, the Twins moved Puckett up to A-ball where he had 29 doubles and 9 homeruns, while producing a .314 batting average and a .442 slugging percentage.  So right there is a track record that shows that Puckett not only had the ability to hit for average, but also had the inherent ability to drive the ball as he continued to grow and gain experience.  Now in 1984, Puckett’s rookie season, he was moved all the way up to AAA and for the first time ever, struggled.  Puckett hit only .263 and had a meager slugging percentage.  For the first time, he was in over his head.  However, the Twins, for some reason, still promoted him.  Once in the majors, Puckett improved his batting average, but still struggled against the better competition.  In 1985, he made impressive gains by improving his slugging percentage by 50 points, showing gap power with 29 doubles and 13 triples.  The only thing needed now was that final adjustment in his swing and he’d be set. 

 

Nobody will argue that Puckett was a 30 homerun hitter, but it is certainly not surprising that he hit that many in 1986.  He was 26, he was just reaching his prime and the balls were juiced.  Of course the juiced balls don’t account for all 31 bombs, but they could have added 3 - 5 once he adjusted his hitting style.  And it certainly isn’t odd that Puckett’s homeruns dropped off after a couple seasons.  He initially was being pitched to as a slap hitter, but now he was turning on pitches to knock them out of the park.  He no longer was hitting triples and he was striking out more.  Over the next couple seasons, pitchers naturally started making adjustments and Puckett settled in the 15-25 homerun range.  Even Oliva hit 32 as a rookie and then only mustered 16 the following season.     

 

So if that still doesn’t sway your opinion that Puckett is innocent of steroid abuse, keep this in mind. 

 

Let’s say Puckett started taking steroids in 1986.  For that to have any correlation with his glaucoma, he would have had to have been a consistent abuser up until his retirement.  He couldn’t have abused in 1986 – 1988 and then never taken them again for it to have affected his eyesight.  Steroids are found to cause pressure within the optic nerve and that pressure will stay constant unless abuse dissipates.  Again from the Glaucoma Associates of Texas, “If this is recognized early enough by your eye doctor and the steroids are discontinued, the eye pressure most often returns to its original level. However, if this is not recognized until it is too late, then the eye pressure will remain high and damage the optic nerve, even when the drug is discontinued.”  He obviously wasn’t playing with a broken optic nerve when he won his only batting title in 1989. 

 

So if we again look at the stats, Puckett improved his power numbers slightly at the tail-end of his career, where steroid abuse could have possibly correlated with steroids.  However, baseball clearly started to juice balls once again in 1993 as homeruns increased by 1,000, so it’s not a surprise that Puckett hit 8 additional homeruns over his career average in his final three seasons.

 

So in conclusion, I believe I did Puckett justice by proving that it is extremely unlikely that he abused steroids.  In fact, I don’t think Puckett stands out any differently than any other player from that era that hasn’t yet been linked to steroid abuse.  For steroids to have played a role in his glaucoma and death, he would have had to have been abusing in his final years… not during the stretch when he was growing into his prime and when his batting style was tweaked by one of the greatest hitters of all time.  By 1996, when he was diagnosed, Puckett’s supposed steroid-induced eye pressure levels would have long returned to normal levels.  Puckett’s glaucoma was more than likely caused by the fact that he had a history of glaucoma and circulatory problems in general within his family’s medical history, not to mention the fact that it is certainly not an uncommon illness for African Americans. 

 

His medical history again played a big role in his death.  He suffered from high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, poor nutrition and physical inactivity.  And let’s also not forget his battle with depression after divorce and a monumental fall from grace.  Friends and family who knew the Puckett’s history with medical problems and untimely death were scared for his well-being when he ballooned to over 300 pounds and rightfully so.  Puckett neglected his body and health and that is the overwhelming reason why this beloved hall-of-famer died way too young.     

7 recs  |  Comment 107 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Defending TT (for some reason)

Excuse me, Mr. TheBlackFreighter, sir, but in TT’s defense, I think he was not accusing Puckett of using steroids, but rather that it was a possibility, by pointing out certain parts of Puckett’s life and career that correlate (note: not necessarily caused) with steroid use.

Oh, and your sister says hi.

by Andrew Bryz-Gornia on Feb 26, 2010 1:19 AM EST reply actions  

I'm not so sure...

That’s how I read his post, but if you read his rebuttals within the comments, he sure refuses to back down which leads me to believe that he definitely sees validity in the assumption that Puckett abused steroids.

by TheBlackFreighter on Feb 26, 2010 1:32 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

very true

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 26, 2010 1:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Thank you very much

I have been very adament in Puckett’s defense ever since I saw that written. I have found out that more people, mostly Twins fans, do believe this as well, although most do not want to say anything.

Puckett has always been a mentor to me. Unfortunately, his career and ultimately his life were cut short. RIP Kirbyyyyyyy Puckett!!!!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 26, 2010 1:21 AM EST reply actions  

oh

and definitely rec’d!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 26, 2010 1:22 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

while your at it, look up “hero”, “idol” and “role model”, and decide which fits best.

The really important corollary to this discussion is our inability to be objective in our views about hometown players. It would be really interesting, for instance, to get all of the SBNation boards together to do projections of team and individual statistics for the upcoming year. I suspect that there will be a significant difference in the projections between the hometown board and the others. I’d also be curious to see who is more accurate.

Kirby Puckett serves as a great discussion point for this topic. He is very interesting, and has a complicated story. Before I get into this, I want to warn you not to bother yelling at me for slandering the dead. I think the dead deserve no special protection, and in fact, we should be much more concerned about offending the living, who might be made to feel badly. Secondly, I don’t KNOW whether he was a good or bad person, I just think this is an interesting topic to discuss.

Ok to continue: TT has a reasonable argument. Right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with suggesting it. Just as there is nothing wrong with suggesting that Brock Lesnar MAY have taken steroids. All evidence is circumstantial (wrestler, enormous, diverticulitis), and while you can’t convict based on a smoke&fire argument, it doesn’t make it unreasonable. Nothing crazy aobut wondering if he did. good luck proving it either way.

Personal life: The man took awful care of his body, was called “abusive”, and was accused lewd behavior in public, assault, and criminal sexual misconduct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_Puckett#Controversy)

By any objective measure, does this make him a good idol or role model? He is popular on the basis of having been good at baseball, and community service work. In aggregate, I don’t think this makes him particularly note worthy. In fact, it probably puts him on par with a Priest accused of innappropriate behavior with children, who was probably even more active in community service, and helping people connect spiritually.

Would you suggest to your child that they try to emulate Kirby? So why do we like him? I think it pretty much boils down to his success for our favorite baseball team, and his smile. I still hold that Torii Hunter would never have been one tenth as popular if he wasn’t attractive. The guy has a 1 million watt smile, and really likes being interviewed, which somehow makes up for the fact that he is pretty whiny, and PUNCHED a teammate.

by snolls on Feb 27, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you're looking at this too objectively

By any objective measure, does this make him a good idol or role model?

No, but when people choose heroes and role models, it’s never about being objective. I don’t think Minnesotans hero worship the real Kirby Puckett. I don’t think Minnesotans particularly care about Kirby’s personal life and his problems.

Minnesotans care about the symbol that Kirby represents. It’s not about his lewd behavior. Since 1991, it’s not even about his smile or his personality. It all boils down to “touch ’em all, Kirby Puckett!” It’s about that singular image of triumph and glory, the image of Kirby circling the bases after a game-winning home run. That’s the symbol of Kirby, that’s why people get so attached to him. Who he really was doesn’t matter, but what he symbolizes does.

That’s how hero worship works. It’s never objective, and it never will be. I don’t think that’s particularly a problem. People need someone too look up to. But if we view everyone with complete objectivity, we would have no heroes. Everyone is flawed in some way. Better to have heroes, even unrealistic images of heroes, in order to have something greater to aspire to.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 27, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   3 recs

Yes, there is.
TT has a reasonable argument. Right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with suggesting it.

Except for the fact that we’re speculating about something that is absolutely none of our business.

by timprov on Feb 27, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Kirby Puckett's charity work

Not surprising that the Wiki article you linked to would gloss over his charity work and highlight alleged “abusive behavior” of an icon like Kirby. Never mind that he was acquitted of the rape charge or other’s motivations for making those claims about him, we want dirt.
Meanwhile all the work he did with his Celebrity 8-Ball Invitational, Puckett Scholars Program, Because We Care, and the Twins Community Fund gets ignored. KIRBY PUCKETT: Showing Others the Way

This whole discussion is pretty f@#%ed up.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." -Holden Caufield

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Feb 27, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Reply to all three of you

Gil_thorp: I think we agree: he isn’t a hero for any objective reason. I also think that there is no reason to protect his hero status. People will continue to root for him, but if we want to discuss qualities to aspire to, then it is worth digging in a little bit.

Timprov: When it comes to celebrities, it is our business. Kirby chose to make his life very public. If it is fair to make him a saint, then it is fair to stone him like a sinner. This is the risk of celebrity.

Cowbell: I didn’t write the article, and I didn’t link to it to provide a complete biography. I’m not saying he was all bad, that’s the whole point. His charity work is exactly why I made the child abusing priest comparison. Lots of people do good and bad things (everyone, probably). Most of us have decided to remember Kirby for his homeruns, and his smile.

In summary, just because some people make him there hero, remembering him in a good light, doesn’t make it wrong for others to remember him poorly. This isn’t like you’re tearing apart a 5 year old’s teddy bear. Little kids now don’t know who Kirby was. We’re only attacking the hero of those in their 20’s and up, who I think can take it. If not, i’m over it.

by snolls on Feb 28, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

sorry

I put in a word that was meant to be model. Big whoop!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 27, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Let's take the Nick Punto approach on this

You didn’t use the “wrong” words. Instead, you used gritty vocabulary, and you showed hustle!

In all seriousness, I don’t see why people feel the need to jump on English issues on the internet. Like you said, big deal.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 27, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

thanks wwgtd!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 27, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Because they don't have anything better to use as criticism

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 27, 2010 7:04 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I do,

I have a whole handful of monkey poop here. I just don’t have anyone to throw it at!

by montanatwinsfan on Feb 28, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions  

let me say this

When I wrote the above article, I was thinking about how Puckett was a mentor to Hunter. My fingers do not always type what I meant…in this case, model or hero or icon.

Furthermore, I bet 4 out of 6 people reading the above comment did not notice this mistake. I know perfectly well what a mentor is and so I do not have to look up a definition. You just try to pick on everybody in whatever way you can…go back to your sheep.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 28, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Come on...

Why would you say “4 out of 6” instead of “2 out of 3”? Not reducing your fractions is just lazy.

No one said yet that complaining about people’s math is off-limits, right?

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Feb 28, 2010 4:57 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This made me laugh a lot.

Sorry, 33MMVP.

RonGarde: Target Field is going to be exactly like Progressive Field, except you'll have a chance to die of frostbite in the middle of July

by fischean on Feb 28, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions  

well, sometimes the interpretation says more about the reader than it does the author,

My sentence was about as neutral as neutral gets. It could be seen as “jumping on”, it could be seen as criticism…

or ironically it could be seen as a moment of mentoring, where I suggested he take the time to look up a word, so that he understands the meaning of the words he uses.

by montanatwinsfan on Feb 28, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

haha

way to help the kid out :)
seriously though, there’s nothing wrong with correcting someone’s writing. Clarity is important. Differentiating between a mentor and a hero is a big deal, particularly because the mentoring describes the actions of the target (kirby), while the hero worship is the action of fan.

by snolls on Feb 28, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't mean to single you out with the "jumping on" comment

I didn’t think 33MVP didn’t know what a mentor was, I figured he used “mentor” when he meant “hero.” I think that’s why I had a different reaction than you did.

I meant the “jumping on” comment more generally. I don’t see that happen much on this blog, but there are other blogs where people are much more critical of spelling or grammar mistakes.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 28, 2010 11:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I couldn't agree more with your main premise

I, for one am a rather poor writer, and often cut to the point of what I am trying to say before I have clarified my argument. Cutting some slack for that type of thing (especially in forums like these where people have limited time and space) is essential for a productive and healthy dialogue.

Then again, if people are going to post stupid statements, or foolish opinions that they attempt to pass off as absolute truths, they need to have a little thick skin, or learn from their mistakes when those mistakes are pointed out.

JFK stopped the Russians from bombing the US by careful procedures and calculated risks. Clinton made the Russians want to bomb us again.

That statement alone (regardless of the forum) suggests the author needs some serious “mentoring” …

by montanatwinsfan on Mar 1, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Thanks...

And for someone (TT) who seems to be proposing something for discussion, his tone changes to very defensive when you disagree with his position!

Thanks for defending our hero. Although, since he’s already in the Hall, it doesn’t really matter much – except to tarnish his reputation posthumously (bad form!).

by Boss10 on Feb 26, 2010 2:20 AM EST reply actions  

posthumous bashing

See my comment above about posthumous bashing

It is far worse to bash someone to their face, or in a way that will get back to them, than to “tarnish their memory”. Don’t go up to Kirby’s family and talk $h!#, but there is no reason to sanctify and protect the dead. This is what creates the complete myth of most heros. People are complicated, and no-one’s life is as simple as the heart-warming, or anger-inducing anecdotal stories that can emerge from anyone’s life. All that matters is which stories gain prominance. For instance, someone tell me the fundamental difference between JFK and Bill Clinton, please.

by snolls on Feb 27, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions  

not that this

is a political blog, but the fundamental difference between JFK and BC is this: JFK stopped the Russians from bombing the US by careful procedures and calculated risks. Clinton made the Russians want to bomb us again. But as I said earlier, this is a discussion for another blog.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 27, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I could be wrong, but I think he's refering to the Monica Lewinsky scandal vs. rumors of JFK cheating on his wife

Clinton was impeached, JFK remains a hero to many. Not a lot of difference in their personal lives, big difference in the impact of their infidelities.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 28, 2010 1:11 AM EST up reply actions  

thanks gil

That is what I was getting at.

33MVP: This isn’t a political discussion, this is a discussion of perception relative to behavior. JFK and Clinton are actually really similar political figures. Both charismatic, smooth talking, incredibly intelligent, huge support from broad bases of “blue collar” types with huge appeal. Both had long reputations for infidelity. They are viewed through completely different glasses. This says more about us, the impact of the media, and the key issues and priorities of the eras, then it does about the candidates.

That’s all I was saying.

by snolls on Feb 28, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I have to admit, that "Jesse" wasn't me.

I don’t read Granny Baseball—TT is good at what he does, but he does get very defensive when you disagree with him, and it makes it very hard to have a baseball discussion with him. He used to bait people in the early days of TwinkieTown in the comments with circular logic and made a living out of ignoring larger arguments by expoiting minor mistakes in your data or reasoning.

by Jesse on Feb 26, 2010 3:26 AM EST reply actions  

Yeah, he's the worst offender in the Twins blogosphere, in my book

I used to go ‘round and ’round with him over at DTFC. They had an unwritten rule that, if you defended yourself against him, you’d get a warning. Three warnings and you’d get a ban. Many a blogger got banned over there because of him, including me. Funny they never banned him. But because he basically drove all the good bloggers away, they lost all interest and had to be shut down. (Actually, they might have been shut down for other reasons. But TT sure didn’t help them.)

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 28, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

They finally banned TT there...

The main reason DTFC ended up calling it quits because one of the mods had health issues.

They kept TwinsTroll around far too long, though, before they banned him. I got the impression that they saw him as the “anti-roto” guy who kept numbers-oriented posters from overtaking the forum. That and it was a bit of a “homer” forum. They liked to earnestly root for their Twins but didn’t care too much for questioning the organization.

That’s the irony here. TwinsTroll drove people nuts defending the likes of Luis Rivas on the basis that the administration knew better than the fans did and now he’s playing iconoclast against one of the biggest heroes in franchise history. Just proves he’s just out to make other people angry for his own personal entertainment.

TwinsTroll was a piece of work, though. He’d troll game threads and pick fights with people who got upset when players made stupid mistakes. He’d start threads for the sole purpose of discussing why people didn’t like him.

There was some vindication when he was quickly banned by Sickels at his website.

by DavidRF on Feb 28, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Your memory is your memory

I guess I shouldn’t be, but I’m a bit surprised at all the people arguing that TT’s argument is bad for no other reason than, ‘why can you say such a thing about a guy as great as Kirby?’

Kirby was a fine baseball player, and if that’s how you want to remember him, I don’t see what I, TT, or anybody else can do to mess with your memory.

On the other hand, if you want to call Puckett a ‘hero’, well, I have to say I disagree, even discounting TT’s argument. We have reasonable evidence to believe that Puckett cheated on his wife and sexually abused at least one woman. While it was certainly true that Puckett was active in community service while a player, he disappeared from the community (and the Twins) after his retirement; testimony from Puckett’s mistress suggests that Puckett didn’t really enjoy the community aspect of his playing days and only did it because he believed it was part of his role as a ballplayer. In a way, his death was the best PR the Twins had in Puckett’s post-playing career; it helped them get Target Field built.

I say these things not to convince you that your memory of Puckett is flawed (though if I do convince you of that, thanks), but to explain why my memory of Puckett doesn’t match yours. I don’t think it makes me any less a baseball fan or Twins fan to admit that I don’t find Puckett all that attractive as a ‘hero’ given his post-playing career, just as I don’t think it would make me any less of a golf fan to say that I don’t find Tiger Woods to be much of a role model these days.

On the other hand, if what you are trying to do is ‘preserve’ a public memory that contains only the good and none of the bad parts of Puckett’s life, are you really doing him a favor? Hiding the bad stuff doesn’t make it go away, and when someone who’s been told how great Puckett is finds this stuff on their own, it makes them wonder how much of what they’ve been told is a lie.

Discussion is useful, and arguments can be illuminating. But saying that TT’s argument is flawed because Puckett is awesome and how dare he sully my memory of Puckett is just plain silly — if the only way you can keep the memory of Puckett the way you want it is to vilify any suggestion that your memory isn’t a perfect reflection of reality, then maybe you need to think about what your memory of Puckett really means.

by dwintheiser on Mar 8, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

It was me

I usually post as Jesse H to avoid being thought of as Jesse from Twinkie Town but I forgot to add the H in that post.

by Jesse H. on Feb 26, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Haha oh well.

I agreed with your comment, so we were on the same page anyway!

by Jesse on Feb 28, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm not sure what kind of reaction he was expecting to get with that article...

basically condemning a Minnesota Twins legend, but I’m sure the page hits are making it all okay. Either way, this was a good rebuttal-civil and organized.

RonGarde: Target Field is going to be exactly like Progressive Field, except you'll have a chance to die of frostbite in the middle of July

by fischean on Feb 26, 2010 10:17 AM EST reply actions  

Great write-up and Rec'd.

A few weeks back there was link on Joe Posnanski’s blog to a Bill James article on steroids where he talked about how people shouldn’t link any type of auxillary side effects associated with steroid use to actual steroid use and used the example of Kirby Puckett dying young and Dan Gladden having acne. This of course, slipped past a lot of commenters who were all “OMG! He said the Twins cheated.”

by matty_b on Feb 26, 2010 10:45 AM EST reply actions  

Let me propose something

I have no idea whether Puckett used steroids or not, and neither do you. But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised.

However…so what? Back in the 80s, even more than recently, you couldn’t really say it was against the rules. By the late 90s, it still wasn’t against the rules, but there was a clear public sentiment that it wasn’t kosher. But in the 80s…it isn’t clear to me that there would have been any sense of wrongdoing at the time.

As for the later health issues…I agree. Drawing those associations is dubious at best. The health problems Puckett had almost certainly were a result of genetics and the poor shape he kept himself in.

On a slightly different note, I find the deification of Puckett in Minnesota to be a very interesting sociological phenomenon. He really behaved quite badly at times, in ways that simply I wouldn’t expect the people of Minnesota to accept. And yet, we somehow manage to ignore all of that…why? Because he stayed? Because he was voluntarily “one of us?” The smile? The physique? I’m honestly asking?

by Eric in Madison on Feb 26, 2010 10:54 AM EST reply actions  

I would be extremely surprised
I have no idea whether Puckett used steroids or not, and neither do you. But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised.

You might as well have said, “I have no idea whether Mauer uses steroids or not, and neither do you.” Trashing our heros is another “very interesting sociological phenomenon.”

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." -Holden Caufield

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Feb 26, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I could have said that about Mauer

But the difference is, I didn’t bring Puckett and steroids up, and I never would have. But if people begin posting on the question, I don’t see why I shouldn’t put in my 2 cents.

by Eric in Madison on Feb 26, 2010 2:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't remember any scandals while he was playing...

He wasn’t Randy Moss or Latrell Sprewell. From what I recall, all the bad stuff hit the fan in 2002 or 2003. Not only after retirement, but after his HOF induction.

While he was playing, he was very genial and likable, not only in Minnesota but across the league. Deification is a strong word. There was an impression that Minnesota was an attractive place to sign with or be traded to because people wanted to be his teammate. I don’t know how often that actually happened, but it was a quote used occasionally by players who came here. His early retirement had the effect of emphasizing the strong positive sentiments.

Anyhow, all that changed when the scandals broke. His image certainly took a beating. I do think his early death had the interesting effect of making people forget the post-career scandals and restoring his playing-days reputation.

But his playing-days reputation was very positive.

by DavidRF on Feb 26, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

and most of those scandals

were falsely brought to the surface, I believe. There are always people out there that try to tarnish a public hero…I am not advocating that Puckett never did those things, we are human after all. But I believe that it was mostly blown out of proportion!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 26, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

What do you mean "falsely"

Do you have personal reason to believe that it was false? Being acquitted is not the same as proving innocence.

by snolls on Feb 27, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions  

quite true

but neither is being accused the same as being proven guilty.

by dctwin on Feb 27, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

proving innocence?

I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. You never have to be proven innocent.

by Michael Krogh on Feb 27, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Bingo!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." -Holden Caufield

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Feb 27, 2010 7:55 PM EST up reply actions  

statutory threshold

Innocent until proven guilty isn’t some ethereal law. It is an statutory burden on the prosecution that only applies to criminal law in the United States. In U.S. civil court, for instance, the burden is “a preponderance of the evidence”, which is roughly – which story sounds more likely (reference point: this is why O.J. won the criminal case, but lost the civil case). In other countries, the criminal and civil standards very a lot.

In the court of public perception, you choose your own threshold. You are welcome to use any evidenciary threshold you like, but i suggest that you like, but I suggest that you play fair. For instance, did McGwire, Bonds, or Giambi do steroids? None of them have been convicted (“proven guilty”). McGwire is the only one to have admitted it, and he did it a month ago. Extention – had McGwire done steroids prior to his confession? As of a couple months ago, he hadn’t even admitted it? Did his guilt in your mind change when he confessed?

We aren’t decided who goes to the guillotine here. We don’t have to artificially protect the rights of the accused, by weighing in the risk that we are sentencing them unfairly to some awful fate. We are deciding for ourselves, whether to speak ill of them, and frankly, they have no right to not be spoken ill of. By virtue of their own celebrity (in both my mind, and under U.S. law), they have no protection from our discussing them as we please. they have benefited from their public personas, and we have every right to drag them through the ringer. Also, I think they’re guilty, and that’s enough for me.

I also think it’s entirely possible that Kirby did steroids, beat women, and lead a very unhealthy lifestyle. I don’t feel a need to build up a lot of proof over it. If you do, you’re welcome to not believe it.

by snolls on Feb 28, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions  

because of

your “don’t feel a need to build up a lot of proof over it.” I think you maliciously are trying to malign Kirby in the hearts of Twins fans just as TT was trying to do.

If we give TT any instances of players improving their play or anything, he is just going to say that they all did steroids…sometimes you cannot win with people like that.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 28, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

oh well

It’s a shame that you think I’m “maliciously trying to malign” him or anyone. You may not have gathered this from my various posts, but I’m more of the nerdy intellectual type. I really like questioning common logic, and breaking down arguments to test assumptions and reasoning.

I’m no homer – at the end of the day, my own self esteem isn’t tied to the twins, or any individual players. I remember when I was 10-15, and I lived or died with every game, or personal performance (I was an orioles fan back then, which was rough). Now, I root for the twins, I get excited if they do well, and disappointed if they don’t, but it’s nothing more than disappointment. If Joe Mauer turns goes on a ’roid rage binge, kills someone, runs over children and spends the rest of his life in prison, I will be very disappointed, but it will be a very interesting story to talk about.

Funny story: I have a friend who was sleeping with a big time NFL player. A couple of weeks after I found out, there was an article in a major newspaper about how good of a family man the guy is. All I’m saying is that, as fans, we have no idea. The illusions we build up around players are just awful. If the truth mattered, then we shouldn’t build them up to be heroes in the first place. We certainly shouldn’t be upset when people break down the positive images we have, as they are no less suppported by fact than our idealistic imaginations.

by snolls on Mar 1, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

So we should assume Mauer is guilty then?

I say Mauer likes to steal kittens from small children. Then he proceeds to stir-fry the kittens in front of the children and eats the kittens while Justin holds the kids eyes open so the children cannot look away.

Prove I am wrong! You can’t, can you!!! Must be true then. If you presume its not true than every baseball that has ever lived is a saint. Of course, all players have not been saints… so it must be true! Case closed!!!!

We know this TwinsTroll guy. His sole purpose is to make other people angry for his own personal entertainment. The week before he laid out some bait with a post about Nick Punto and how he’s been a great player and an integral part of the franchises sustained run of success. All carefully worded to get people to respond emotionally so that he can jump on how they phrase their responses.

TwinsTroll has been banned from every forum on the net, so he created his own forum. You are wasting your time by reading any thing he writes.

by DavidRF on Mar 1, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Philosophy vs. Rhetoric

Philosophers like to pretend that an unprovable thought experiment doesn’t mean anything in and of itself. But the reality is, when you speculate about stuff that is not provable, you say something. In this case, when you speculate about Puckett, you subtly accuse him. But rather than accusing him point blank, you hide behind the thought experiment rhetoric so you can always defend yourself with “Just sayin’” or words to that effect. It’s not just disrespectful, it’s cowardly.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Mar 1, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

+10000

"I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. See, my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it . . ."

by Skippy tastes better than Jiff on Mar 2, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions  

True that his reputation was pristine

when he was playing; I’m talking about the post-career revelations, and yet, he’s still worshipped.

by Eric in Madison on Feb 26, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

... only since he died

That part is understandable. Normally an upwell of sentiment fades with time, but in the long run is anyone going to remember what he did after he retired? It’d be one thing if the scandals were during the career, but as far as I know they were not.

by DavidRF on Feb 26, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think it's so hard to understand

He had an incredibly likeable baseball persona, he was an awesome baseball player, and he won Minnesota its only 2 world championships ever.

It takes a lot of bad behavior to make people forget about all that.

by Luke in MN on Feb 26, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

And I don't want to start a steroids holy war here, but

steroids was clearly cheating even back in Puckett’s day. It was against the law. I don’t think there’s a special baseball rule about murdering opposing players in their sleep, but it’s clearly cheating. You shouldn’t really need to make special “baseball rules” to outlaw something that’s already illegal.

by Luke in MN on Feb 26, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

But....well, so were greenies, at least without a Rx

The point is, when there is no enforcement mechanism, and the use of a product is rampant, it’s very difficult in my view to get too worked up about any particular player.

Yes, they knew it was “wrong” in the widest sense; olympic sports were testing by then, but in a situation like baseball, I can’t see blaming anyone using in 80s.

by Eric in Madison on Feb 26, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I think your last sentence is a contradiction

If it was widely known to be wrong, we can blame them for doing it. I’m not saying we have to burn them at the stake or treat it like a capital offense, but it was clearly cheating. They did it shamefully, in secret.

by Luke in MN on Feb 28, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

I have a tough time...

with drawing the conclusion of illegality = cheating. What if a player trains in the offseason in a country where steroids are legal and stops before he steps foot on US soil? Should he be treated differently than a player who trains in the US? Would this have meant he played by the rules since he wasn’t breaking the law?

To me, cheating is the literal breaking of the rules. If baseball really thought it was important, they would have found a spot to squeeze it into the 200+page collective bargaining agreement before the last couple of years.

by GACTwinFan on Feb 27, 2010 12:57 AM EST up reply actions  

in order for

steroids to have any effect, they must be taken consistently. If not, your system gradually clears them out. Look at Giambi as a prime example..he took them, hitting 40 homers a year or w/e, but as soon as the ban came out, he was just another 10 homer guy.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 27, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

False

the impact of steroids does not disappear. Weight lifters are still stronger, years after weight lifting has stopped, and steroids are no different. Yes, you will lose some of the impact, but it never goes away.

by snolls on Feb 27, 2010 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I hardly feel constrained by baseball's rulebooks.

If someone was taking steroids in my softball league, I’d consider him a cheater, regardless of what our league rules said. I’d still consider him a cheater if he only took them back in his home country where it’s legal.

With some rare exceptions, people want steroids out of the game. We don’t want people to have to take steroids to be competitive and we don’t want people to excel by virtue of taking a particular dangerous drug. This was well-understood in the 80s and understanding this is enough to understand that steroids is cheating.

by Luke in MN on Feb 28, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Just a quibble

But you’re kind of arguing two different points of view.
One absolute/factual:

steroids was clearly cheating even back in Puckett’s day.

and one opinion based:
If someone was taking steroids in my softball league, I’d consider him a cheate

Many focus on steroids because it produced something tangible (Bond’s hat size increased so much that Mike Myers is yelling at him for his pants for example). Those same people will ignore how ball players from earlier generations were able to go from late night bender to doubleheader back to bender back to next day game. Greenies weren’t legal or banned by baseball. Does that mean we go back and find out who actually took them to bounce those players and any records they hold?

I agree with you on a couple of things. I want PEDs out of the game completely. Am I going to let a player’s use of illegal substances paint a different picture of who they are as a person? Absolutely. Does that mean he cheated? Absolutely not.

by GACTwinFan on Feb 28, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't

But using cherry picked stats and conjecture is not the way to say he did them. You have to real reporting work and real digging into his associates, off season pals and the team.

by clutterheart on Feb 27, 2010 1:52 PM EST reply actions  

Thread promoted to featured status?!?

Aw come on. The guys name at Granny Baseball is “TwinsTroll”. He’s been banned from several forums, including Sickels’ MinorLeagueBall.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

What next? Harmon Killebrew picked his nose? Bud Grant likes to litter? Quit being such easy targets everyone!

Actual spring training games start next week, no? Maybe we won’t be so easily distracted once that happens.

by DavidRF on Feb 27, 2010 2:15 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

+1

This guy is a troll, trying to bash hometown heroes by raising a question that may or may not be true. However, if he wants to put a target on his back, I am fine with that because I will be one of them to look for that target.

Yes, Spring Training games for the Twins start March 4…I personally cannot wait, especially to see O-Dog, Hardy, Thomer, and Valencia kicking some tail in ST.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 27, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

ha, ha, ha
However, if he wants to put a target on his back, I am fine with that because I will be one of them to look for that target.

I’m sure you’ve got him nervous now.

by montanatwinsfan on Feb 28, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

I guess

I guess it’s possible that Kirby used. My childhood image of him has been mostly, and very sadly, lost at this point anyway. I prefer to look at weight for steroids myself. if his big jump in homers was mostly caused by steroids, I would look for a very sudden and dramatic increase in weight as a prerequisite. Since Puckett’s transition was mostly a career long arc from skinny, to thick, to rolly-poly, I don’t know if I would find anything. It would be very difficult to accurately ascertain such a thing at this point anyway.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 27, 2010 3:14 PM EST reply actions  

I don't buy the 'roids angle, but...

I’ve heard from people who would have been in position to know that in what turned out to be the last years of his life Kirby was acting like an alcoholic. Having had too much contact with that sort of thing in my life, it makes sense. Behavior changes, damaged relationships, deteriorating health, etc. The line between depression and alcoholism is blurry at best also. Loss of his career couldn’t have helped. The whole thing was, and is, horribly sad.

But his stats can be explained without the ’roids. And his was not exactly the classic ’roids body, was it.

by sw mn guy on Feb 27, 2010 4:55 PM EST reply actions  

I just don't see why anyone would attack Kirby's memory like this

He had plenty of documented flaws, if you want to pick at his character. Most of those flaws were related to chemical dependency and depression. That’s more tragic than worthy of criticism. To speculate on undocumented (and unprovable) character flaws smacks of vindictiveness, however clothed in scientific fact it may seem.

I don’t want to ignore Kirby’s flaws. But it’s really not my place to judge. I would much rather think about all his great qualities. His infectious laugh. His devotion to the game. His rags-to-riches story. Most of all, what Gardy said recently, to paraphrase: Nobody in the history of the game has been more appreciative to wear a big-league uniform than Kirby Puckett.

Can’t we just preserve that memory of him, rather than spitting on his grave?

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 27, 2010 7:16 PM EST reply actions   3 recs

Well said.

Thank you!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." -Holden Caufield

by less cowbell, more 'neau on Feb 27, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Coward

The only reason he’s attacking Kirby is because he is dead and unable to respond to the charges. Rumor and innuendo don’t mean anything.

Twins fans overrate Kirby Puckett but this is something else. This is smearing a public figure to get attention. It is the worst kind of muckraking and doesn’t deserve my response.

by DJL44 on Feb 27, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank you!

Why bother attacking him now? Really, come on now people. One of my fondest memories of my childhood was being in Cooperstown for his induction ceremony and I don’t see any reason to make accusations now. I can’t even fathom Kirby being the type of player who would cheat, he just seemed to have too much class. I can’t personally remember watching him play, but I don’t think that is something he would do.

by Neil34 on Feb 27, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions  

- 10,000

I love(d) everything I ever saw about Kirby Puckett. He was a real hero to many. However, that doesn’t make him immune to criticism, on or off of the field. A random blogger might be foolish to speculate on something that he/she knows nothing about (his guilt or innocence about specific alleged illegal acts). However, this subject seems like awfully fair game to me.

I have no interest in researching it or writing about it. However, I find the topic interesting. Pure speculation and probably garbage, but interesting anyway.

I agree with you Cmath that I would rather remember the good Kirby Puckett, but not everyone does, and calling people ‘cowards’ or other foolish names because they have a difference of opinion is just pretty cowardly.

by montanatwinsfan on Feb 28, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

The difference between criticism and libel

There’s no evidence of steroid use at all. He started hitting home runs as he got older. By that logic, Harmon Killebrew started taking sometime in his teens.

by DJL44 on Feb 28, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes - there is

Saying that you think he might have, or you wonder if he did use steroids is not libel. Were Kirby alive, there is nothing close to libel in TT’s post, that Kirby could sue for.

I liked Kirby. I still have good memories. I also have positive memories of Clem Haskins as a real supporter of academics, and someone who really helped the players who played for him. Oh well, things change.

I think the most valuable stories coming out of Kirby’s life are: (a) the kid who came out of one of the most famous projects in the U.S. to succeed, and later give back in a big way, and (b) the lesson to be learned from a guy who threw his life away and the end of his life, possibly related to addiction and depression. The first is positive and motiviational, and the second is a “learning moment”. But holding people up to be false heroes does no one any good.

BTW – I think this is a really interesting post – one of the best on Twinkietown. This absolutely deserves front page coverage, as evidenced by the numerous, and thought out, well written and varied comments people have posted. BlackFreighter – good post, and i’m glad you started the discussion.

Last point – I don’t think we take the same positive spin approach to players on other teams. I’d be surprised to see a lot of people defending A-rod or Gary Sheffield, players who seem to have a lot of fun, and are great baseball players. We tend to attack our opponents, and put a halo around our own players. We have every right to do that, but I don’t think it makes much sense. It’s one thing to let your kids get all excited about their teams’ superstar. It’s motivational, and it makes no sense to tear apart a little kids hero to them (for instance, if my kid was a huge Kobe fan, I wouldn’t into discussing the details of the rape accusation). It is quite another thing to see adults falling all overthemselves to get an autograph, or see smoke rising from their ears while they defend some local sports celebrity. We should know better – these guys are just people.

by snolls on Feb 28, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

the reason

why we attack A-Rod or Sheffield or Giambi or Bonds or McQwire is that they have taken steroids and it has been PROVED (key word!) Nobody can point at Puckett and say he took steroids because it cannot be proved…I respect not only my team (Twins) but also the players on other teams. I hate to say it but I respect Jeter because Jeter kills the Twins and as such I respect him for what he is, a good ball player.

I like many players, Longoria, Pujols, etc…so my views on this subject are not totally biased. For instance, if somebody over at Tampa Bay blog started posting something about Longoria taking steroids, I would defend him because there must be substantial proof that he did….otherwise it is purely idiotic and somebody that wants to stir up something and draw attention to themselves.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 28, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

PROVED?

This definition is important. What do you mean PROVED? No one proved that McQwire took steroids. He was accused, and people have evidence to support it. You have to give me your threshold for absolute proof, and then we need to see if there is a common yard stick that can be “fair”.

More importantly than whether there is sufficient evidence now, is whether there was “proof” when the accusations first surfaced. I can tell you there absolutely wasn’t, or they would have gotten in a lot more trouble. Congress, prosecutors, journalists and the public only started investigating this issue because of unproven accusations. Later, they got the evidence that you argue “proves” it.

As for Bias – it isn’t only bias if it is a Twins thing. If you would defend Longoria, because you like him, but wouldn’t defend, say Brock Lesnar, then it is bias. There is no evidence that Brock Lesnar took steroids. That said, you won’t see me defending him against journalists and blogging accusers. I will, however, defend him in a scenario where he is being prosecuted without sufficient evidence.

by snolls on Mar 1, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

True, more slanderous than libelous

It’s a character smear posed as a “what if, and I’m not saying this is true”.

by DJL44 on Mar 1, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

slander vs libel

No, I think it’s still Libel (written, published or otherwise broadcast), not slander (spoken). The question is whether it meets the threshold of defamation (the broader category, including both slander and libel). Legally, I doubt it does. We can each make our own determination of whether we think it is morally offensive. I have no problem with it.

In fact, this is sort of the purpose of blogs. It gives everyone a voice – and we are all free not to listen.

by snolls on Mar 1, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

anything

that is an opinion based on facts cannot, by definition, be libel or slander. Those legal terms require the intentional (or possibly reckless – depending on the jurisdiction) reporting of known falsehoods.

Agree that this is what blogs are for. If you don’t like it, let the author know. Do not attempt to be the voice of truth, or moral reason and tell the author (or the rest of us) what is and is not acceptable.

by montanatwinsfan on Mar 1, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

This thread is exactly what blogs are for. I think most of us agree that TT’s arguments are speculative and vindictive. But the best response is to point out why his arguments suck. Cutting off discussion because we don’t like the question is counterproductive.

by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Mar 1, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually...

A tiny point, but negligence CAN be the basis for libel tort actions in some cases. Probably not in any jurisdiction for a public figure because of first amendment concerns, but even then, there are various privacy torts that might apply. Not that this is in any way important or relevant, but, hey, it’s a Tuesday and I’m bored at work. Yay for participating in blog forums! :)

by dctwin on Mar 2, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Your memory is your memory

I guess I shouldn’t be, but I’m a bit surprised at all the people arguing that TT’s argument is bad for no other reason than, ‘why can you say such a thing about a guy as great as Kirby?’

Kirby was a fine baseball player, and if that’s how you want to remember him, I don’t see what I, TT, or anybody else can do to mess with your memory.

On the other hand, if you want to call Puckett a ‘hero’, well, I have to say I disagree, even discounting TT’s argument. We have reasonable evidence to believe that Puckett cheated on his wife and sexually abused at least one woman. While it was certainly true that Puckett was active in community service while a player, he disappeared from the community (and the Twins) after his retirement; testimony from Puckett’s mistress suggests that Puckett didn’t really enjoy the community aspect of his playing days and only did it because he believed it was part of his role as a ballplayer. In a way, his death was the best PR the Twins had in Puckett’s post-playing career; it helped them get Target Field built.

I say these things not to convince you that your memory of Puckett is flawed (though if I do convince you of that, thanks), but to explain why my memory of Puckett doesn’t match yours. I don’t think it makes me any less a baseball fan or Twins fan to admit that I don’t find Puckett all that attractive as a ‘hero’ given his post-playing career, just as I don’t think it would make me any less of a golf fan to say that I don’t find Tiger Woods to be much of a role model these days.

On the other hand, if what you are trying to do is ‘preserve’ a public memory that contains only the good and none of the bad parts of Puckett’s life, are you really doing him a favor? Hiding the bad stuff doesn’t make it go away, and when someone who’s been told how great Puckett is finds this stuff on their own, it makes them wonder how much of what they’ve been told is a lie.

Discussion is useful, and arguments can be illuminating. But saying that TT’s argument is flawed because Puckett is awesome and how dare he sully my memory of Puckett is just plain silly — if the only way you can keep the memory of Puckett the way you want it is to vilify any suggestion that your memory isn’t a perfect reflection of reality, then maybe you need to think about what your memory of Puckett really means. And maybe that’s why discussion of Puckett’s bad points really bothers so many people — they can’t keep their memory of Puckett separate from what they know is the reality of Puckett’s life.

And if you can keep your memory of Puckett apart from the negative details of Puckett’s life, then why should being reminded of them bother you?

by dwintheiser on Mar 8, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

The flaw was that the accusation was completely baseless...

No evidence. He just tossed out a random accusation to make people angry for his own personal entertainment value.

No one claimed Puckett was a saint off the field, but I don’t see what that has to do with accusations about steroids. Molitor used to snort cocaine. Does that mean he took steroids, too?

Come back when there’s more evidence and we can re-evaluate.

by DavidRF on Mar 8, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Mar 8, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions  

that really isn't mr. wintheiser's point.

while you are right about TT’s use of purely circumstantial (if not coincidental) evidence, not once did mr. wintheiser defend TT’s argument. He defended TT’s right to post anything he wants, and he wondered aloud (or in electronic ink) why so many people on this thread are blindly arguing that TT is wrong with even less evidence than TT had.

Seriously, re-read some of the things written here in this thread in denial of Kirby Puckett and steroids simply because Kirby is our ‘hero’. There is a lot of emotional knee-jerking going on. TT challenged some people’s idolatry, and forced some to re-think their closely held assumptions. If this is one of the things TT meant to do, he certainly isn’t simply a ‘troll.’

by montanatwinsfan on Mar 8, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions  

TT is merely a troll

His name literally means Twins Troll. He only shortened it later. But you weren’t privy to the years of trollish behavior the likes of which got him banned from every board and blog about the Twins, including this one. The only reason he was able to post his Puckett speculation is he started his own blog, in which he takes trollish behavior to new heights.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Mar 8, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions  

then he is that much easier to ignore.

I have been around this site since well before it turned over from Mr. Bonnes excellent tenure and passed into Jesse’s (and youralls) capable hands.

Unless TT was known as Firpo Marberry or Johnny Saffron I dont remember any trolls. And frankly, as annoying as Firpo/Johnny was he occassionally tried to post some useful stuff … occassionally.

by montanatwinsfan on Mar 8, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions  

TT was banned in the first year

It took him all of two months, I think.

Firpo and Johnny haven’t been banned, to my knowledge. He just chooses not to bug us anymore. Yeah, you probably guessed it. It’s the same guy. I don’t know why he changed his moniker. The similarity in the behavior of the two was transparent enough.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Mar 9, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions  

How many players have ever seen a spike in their homerun totals? There’s Kirby and Joe Mauer, so that’s two…

by Frozen316 on Feb 28, 2010 7:07 PM EST reply actions  

All of them

Except Jason Tyner, unless you call “1” a spike.

by DJL44 on Feb 28, 2010 8:10 PM EST up reply actions  

for Tyner

1 is as big a spike as Maris’ 14-61 homers!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Feb 28, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

On a percentage basis...

It’s a gain of INFINITY! Tyner must’ve had the best steroids ever!

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Mar 1, 2010 9:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Al Newman?

1 homerun in 2,107 career at-bats. Seems fishy to me.

by TheBlackFreighter on Mar 1, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

but Tyner set the record for most ABs without a homer and all of a sudden he hits one into the Cleveland (I think it was Cleveland..??) stands? Obvious abuse of steroids there!

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Mar 1, 2010 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Erroneous Data

The link between steroids and glaucoma by the article is false. Anabolic steroids, which athletes abuse, do not have a correlation with glaucoma. There is, however, a link between corticosteroids and glaucoma. Corticosteroids, prednisone for example, are taken routinely by many patients to reduce inflammation. I know of no study in the American Medical literature that states anabolic steroids may cause glaucoma.

by RandallK on Mar 1, 2010 4:14 PM EST reply actions  

Overheard...

TT: I object!

Blogosphere: On what grounds?

TT: It’s devastating to my case!

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Mar 1, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Excellent point.

And welcome to the site dude. Hope to see you around once and a while!

by Jesse on Mar 3, 2010 6:03 AM EST up reply actions  

That is the best point made so far

Do you know whether the diverticulits that Brock Lesnar had is correlated with anabolic steroid use? This was one of the questions I had when I originally read about it. I understand that steroids are correlated with diverticulitis, but I think this is predominantly with geriatrics, so I’m assuming it’s not anabolic steroids.

by snolls on Mar 4, 2010 10:21 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

TT is an SB Nation blog of, by and for the fans. We strive to be the best Minnesota Twins blog by providing quality content and analysis, as well as daily news and notes on the team. We hope you'll make Twinkie Town your home for all things Twins!
Start posting about the Twins »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Mr. Grit overlooked
The_jet_small
Free Danny Valencia
Small
Minor League Report...July 24, 2010
Small
The Twins have the best starters in the AL.
Small
Minor League Report...July 17, 2010

Recent FanPosts

Small
Good News/Bad News: Twins trade Ramos for Capps.
Small
Chicago TV announcers...
Twins_small
Matt Capps
Bc_small
Clutch hitting, fact or illusion?
Minnesota_twins_vinyl_baseball_small
Words from the great beyond? And haves and the have nots…
Small
Trade Help: How Much Are My Guys Worth?
Small
Poll: Your favorite non-Twins team.
Small
What team do you hate the most?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twinkie Town On Twitter

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

HOUSTON - JULY 24:  Pitcher Roy Oswalt #44 of the Houston Astros throws against the Cincinnati Reds in the first inning at Minute Maid Park on July 24 2010 in Houston Texas.  (Photo by Bob Levey/Getty Images) +13 updates

Done Deal: Roy Oswalt Traded To Phillies, Will Make Debut Friday Night In Washington

Washington Nationals' third base coach Pat Listach shakes Adam Dunn's hand who rounds third after hitting a solo home run during the eighth inning of a baseball game against the Atlanta Braves, Thursday, July 29, 2010, in Washington. (AP Photo/Drew Angerer)

MLB Trade Deadline: Where Does Your Team Stand As Saturday Approaches?

Philadelphia Phillies' Cody Ransom, left, celebrates with Greg Dobbs (19) and Placido Polanco after Ransom scored on a single hit by Wilson Valdez against the  Arizona Diamondbacks to win the baseball game in the 11th inning Thursday, July 29, 2010, in Philadelphia. The Phillies won 3-2. (AP Photo/H. Rumph Jr)

Phillies Complete Sweep Of D'Backs With 11th-Inning Win

More from SBNation.com >


Editor-In-Chief

Twinkietown_small Jesse

Senior Writer

Small Bobomojo

Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler

The_jet_small cmathewson

Gladdentwins_small Adam Peterson

Hosken_powell_autograph_small RandBall's Stu

Special Contributor

Untitled_small Trevour

Twins-release_small Nick Nelson

Small Karlee Kanz

Moderators

Chairmanmauer_small fischean