As noted here earlier this week, Art DeVany has written extensively on the specious basis of the conventional wisdom that Barry Bonds’ steroid use allowed him to break the Major League Baseball home run records. DeVany responds again here:
[The conventional wisdom that Bonds’ steroid use allowed him to break the MLB home run records] does not fit into any standard model or argument that has been offered as an explanation for his “departure” from the norm. There is no norm, which [the conventional wisdom] and most others advances.
Genius does not follow a process that can be normed. My argument is simple and is in the paper. Basically, most people are using an implicit normal distribution model of HRs and they claim that his performance cannot come from the model. Hence, he must have taken something. This is wrong. His performance is within the natural variation of HR hitting, but the model is not a normal distribution. Why should it be? A normal distribution applies when most people are close to the average. This has nothing to do with HRs. If you role snake eyes three times in a row, do you think there has to be an explanation? No, it is in the variation. Just chance. The dice are not on steroids.
What is worse is that people who claim “he did it and it worked” don’t know much about the physiology of steroids. They weaken connective tissue and interfere with concentration when they are taken in large doses. They primarily increase protein synthesis is ST muscle fibers, which are no good for hitting HRs. Lastly, most people who formulate the argument do not have a falsifiable hypothesis, and this is not science. They take his performance, which no one else has ever done, and claim that you cannot prove that it was not due to steroids. “He took steroids and therefore hit 73 HRs” cannot be falsified. Because the conclusion is true, the statement is vacuous. It is true no matter what the premise.
Read the entire post.
Update: Professor DeVany compares Bonds and Hank Aaron’s home run-hitting prowess to that of an average MLB player here, and provides additional comments regarding Bonds here. Professor DeVany’s paper on home-run hitting is here (pdf).
I don’t know if he took steroids and “therefore” hit 73 home runs, but I do know he took steroids and hit 73 home runs. Whether one led to the other or not is irrelevant. Taking steroids makes him a cheat no matter the end result.
Ian, Bonds took steroids, as did many other MLB players during his era. Pete Rose took amphetamines throughout his career, as did many other MLB players during his era. Although Rose is routinely vilified for his gambling habit, I don’t ever hear folks questioning the legitimacy of his career hits mark. How is he different from Bonds?
Tom,
There is no comparison between amphetamines and steroids. Amphetamines were almost exclusively abused by baseball players because of the excessively long season and the need to be literally “awake” for long stretches of games.
I believe history will look back and see the records broken in this last decade will forever be tainted by the abuse of steroids. Mr. Bonds will not be alone in this category. And why buy into just the science argument quoted above? A short interview with Mr. Canseco will give you his perspective on how it helped him increase production.
And what about the preponderance of evidence by those who excelled exponentially in their HR production? Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, Sheffield, Giambi… All of them developed exceptional physical appearance late in their careers and their HR production paralleled along in stride.
Not recognizing this is paramount to wearing rose colored glasses and seeing what you want to see.
The big picture bears out that records were broken by cheaters and should be recognized as such.
NR, your dismissal of illegal amphetamine use is not persuasive. Their use, as with steroid use, was a direct result of the almost pathologically competitive environment and, as you point out, the physically draining nature of playing MLB. The players who took steroids were attempting to improve their bodies’ capacity to endure that punishing workload (regardless of whether their protocols were really effective), just as the players who used amphetamines were attemping to improve their attention span and reaction time. Isn’t it ironic that we vilify players from taking steps to attempt to prevent their bodies from breaking down, while we have for decades looked the other way as professional teams have medicated players through serious injuries, often times at great risk to the player?
Both amphetamines and steroids would be cheating in my book. Just because the players in an earlier era got away with one, doesn’t make the other right today.
I have to get a kick out of all of this steroid talk and the myths that are coming out of the main stream media (MSM) that dupe the fans into believing that steroid use can increase your ability or chances of hitting a home run in Major League Baseball. Letís put some logic behind this argument.
If a steroid: cream, injection, rub, etc. was able to help Barry Bonds hit more home runs, then why arenít there more players in the hunt to break Hank Aaronís record? The reason is because hitting is a skill and with any skill you have to practice and focus in on the task at hand. I continue to state that when it comes to steroids, and I donít care what Jose Conseco believes, that there are no miracles when it comes to taking steroids or any drugs for that matter. These so called designer drugs that everyone is so worked up on are just as phony as going down to your local GNC and buying the latest diet pill or a muscle builder. The facts are that steroid use alone will not help you do anything; if you donít have the skill set to perform then you are wasting your time anyway.
I think Tony Gwen said it best when he was inducted into the hall of fame earlier this year. When he was going for his batting records, he was in the batting cages every day and all he thought about was hitting. The standoffishness that is Barry Bonds shows me that he was focused in on his mark and all of this steroid talk was getting in the way of him doing his job.
Thatís all I have to say about it other than Congratulations to Barry Bonds on breaking the record. If Hank Aaron is not upset about it, then why should we be?
Sigh. Changing someone’s firmly held belief is a very hard task. How one analyzes Barry Bonds’ home run career record is as controversial as analyzing the correct form of Gov’t, and about as scientific at this point.
Although I gave up a long time ago attempting to change anyone’s opinion, we do need to stand on factual data.
One cannot very well argue the merits of a statistical analysis of genius. I don’t know the statistics, nor do I know the assumptions behind the statistics. Most biostatisticians I know likewise don’t know this area. Applying esoteric techniques to biological phenomenon appears to be fraught with danger, but then again I am not an expert so cannot comment on this issue (I freaked out one biostat guy by asking him the probability of anyone breaking Joe DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak).
However, I do know we cannot let stand the inaccuracies DeVany flings above.
Good golly, he says steroids don’t affect FT (fast twitch or Type II) muscle fibers. I just suffered a stroke on that one. OMG. That inaccuracy alone says to let the biologists handle the biology.
The use of anabolic steroids most certainly does affect Type II fibers (as well as Type I). AS increase fiber size, number of fiber nuclei, and indeed even satellite cells. AS generally increase strength, power, and velocity of contraction. Look at who abuses the drugs: sprinters, power lifters, power hitters :-), linebackers…
Look, the speed of a ball coming off the bat is dependent on many things, but if all held equal the velocity of the bat is of prime importance. Larger more powerful muscles increase bat velocity (research on this). AS would increase power and thus bat velocity. Therein lies one answer. Yes AS do increase hitting power.
Remember too we are not just talking about the effects of anabolic steroids in Bonds’ case. There is evidence several other anabolic agents including insulin, HGH, and clomid. The effect of these drugs singularly or in concert just cannot be reliably calculated from any experimental data.
We can go with the impression of someone like Nolan Ryan who noted the power hitters displayed about 1993 or so.
How much of Bond’s achievements are due to the additional effects of smaller ball parks, diluted talent, better bats, his right arm ‘protection’, and his rigorous weight training is all up for debate (we cannot ignore the effect of a rigorous weight training program in extending his career).
In the end, I look at the surge in power that correlates with the surge in muscle mass at an age that says Bonds defied gravity (his apples went up the tree so to speak). However, I admit it is a complicated issue with no answer.
(but it is kinda fun debating the question)
Whats up with Lance Berkman’s power outage down there???