Art De Vany: Senate Reasoning

« "Free" Health Care | Main | A Proprioceptive Desert »

Senate Reasoning

October 13, 2005 08:19 PM

A friend and former colleague of mine was a senator for a number of years. I won't say who he is. He has been out in the real world for some years now and facing the real problems and constraints that one finds there. Recently, he went back to meet with members of the Senate and came back saying, "You know, I forget how flakey these guys are. They are wrapped up in how the Senate works and in their next election and can't see the issues the way someone in the real world must deal with them."

As you know, I am working on steroids and home runs right now, and I find that nothing has really changed in home run hitting over the years. The premiere hitters are still rare individuals with talent far beyond what even an average major league baseball player has, and that is saying quite a bit with the very high level of performance we see in MLB these days.

I went through the last Senate hearings on steroids in baseball and had thought that at least Jim Bunning would have some understanding of the issues. He is, after all, a Hall of Fame player from the not-too-distant past.

Here is what he had to say in his opening remarks to the hearings. I quote only part of it.

Senator Bunning's statement puts it this way: "I remember when players didn't get better as they got older. They got worse. When I played with Hank Aaron and Willie Mays and Ted Williams, they didn't put on forty pounds of bulk in their careers, and they didn't hit more homers in their late thirties than they did in their late twenties...I'm willing to trust baseball, but players and owners have a special responsibility to protect the game. And they owe it to all of us to prove that they are fixing this terrible problem. If not we will have to do it for them.''

He doesn't define the "terrible problem" but presumably it is the pace at which new records in home runs were set over the 1999 to 2001 period. It turns out that he is wrong on even the simple factual assertions he managed to make, aside from the leap to a conclusion and the speculation he states in other parts of his testimony. Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth did not go into a steep decline; they sustained a high level of home run hitting far beyond modern hitters like Maris, McGwire, Sosa, and perhaps even Bonds, though we have yet to see how his career goes. Nobody, so far as I can discover, put on forty pounds, except players of the past many of whom drank rather than trained as modern players do.

On this shallow basis, he is ready to write laws that dictate how a player may treat his body. A strict violation of the Constitution and the rights that any person should possess, irrespective of profession. For what? Because he feels he must "protect the game."

The other evidence in the hearings was garbage. The Chairman of the meetings, Tom Davis had this to say: "After the 1994 MLB players strike, rumors and allegations of steroid use in the league began to surface. Since then, long standing records were broken. Along with these broken records came allegations of steroid use among MLB’s star players. Despite the circulating rumors of illegal drug use, MLB and the Players Association did not respond with a collective bargaining agreement to ban the use of steroids until 2002.''

He wants to legislate because there were rumors and allegations. That is no evidence. Where is the evidence? There is none in the record of the Committee hearings.

This is Senate reasoning, an Orwellian blend of puffery and demagoguery. If this is how the Senate reasons on a relatively simple matter, the laws they pass in more complex areas and the governance of this country are in question.

No more incumbents.

· Sports

Comments

Posted by: Flower Online at September 12, 2006 7:30 AM

Art, thanks for looking at the t-nation article. When reading the article, I felt there was something missing, your summation was the answer. I agree, there was no model, and so
many variables. During his record breaking year, did Bonds have an easier time hitting homers off one particular pitcher? Did production drop the next year because he was walked more? The questions could go on and on.
Great site, will be buying the book.

Posted by: Audley at October 18, 2005 9:40 AM

I glanced at the article that claims that steroids contributed to the home run production of Giambi and Bonds. It is reasonably sophisticated in describing the "stacks" that Balco put together. Perhaps the players took them. I don't know.

But, the statistical analysis is naive. It is easy to show that it is impossible to determine whether steroids contributed to the change in their home run hitting or not. The proof is this: no one has a model that can predict what any player will hit. No model is offered in the T-nation article.

There is not model in the article; only a few years of home runs and an inference the reader is supposed to accept that home runs increased. There is no variance in the estimates and the sample is for only part of Bonds' 18 year career. It is merely assumed that the increase in home runs is from steroid use. Where are the at bats, the hits, the walks, and the rate of home run production? Nothing is controlled for. There is no model.

But, make it simple. The guy is purporting to know how to predict how many home runs a hitter should hit and when the number he hits is not consistent with the player's "usual" performance. No one has this model and you can see that it is not possible to create one that can achieve this task.

Bonds went from being a young, line drive hitter to a home run hitter over his career. The technique is not hard; hit the ball below the center to give back spin and swing slightly upward to launch the ball near 35 degrees. He always had the power, though he did develop both more power and better technique over time. This is called learning by doing and is typical of anyone performing a complex task. Strength athletes show the same pattern.

At no time in Bonds' career did his hits move from the warning track into the seats, which would have to happen if his bat speed increased through the use of steroids. If you look at Babe Ruth's career or any serious home run hitter's career you will see that they do not put out home runs like slicing cheese. It is hard and unpredictable and rare to hit many home runs. I show that the variance, over players, is infinite. So, no predictions are possible. For individual players, the variance is huge. The author seems not to recognize the variance or the learning by doing effects. Nor is there any analysis of how many hits became home runs that were merely long outs before.

Simply, there is no model and there will never be one of home run hitting. It is a primier skill, rare, and ineffable.

Posted by: Art at October 17, 2005 8:57 PM

An article on Bonds and Giambi steriod use just posted on www.t-nation.com. There is a chart of homerun hitting before and after steroids, showing production went up after they started them. It also states they would still be outstanding athletes without the steroids, a position I stated in my previous post. They could hit the ball either way, it's just with steroids they hit that much further.

Posted by: Audley at October 17, 2005 10:07 AM

Heck, if we want to reform the Senate, we ought to repeal the amendment that provided for direct election of Senators. That would also help put brakes on the growth of our Leviathan.

Posted by: dfobare at October 14, 2005 4:51 PM

Great comments and valuable information about records.

I really like Sattar's suggestion that all funds for Senate campaigns must come from the candidate's own constituents, residing in her/his state. That is new to me and seems original, but very sound.

Posted by: Art at October 14, 2005 9:00 AM

I agree that the government should stay out of sports. Maybe it should not be illegal to take steroids, but should it be legal to smoke pot?
I do not agree with the use of either substance for myself, but if a professional bodybuilder wants to use steroids, it is his or her personal choice. The bodybuilder knows the health risks of taking them, no different than an athlete that engages in blood doping, or anyone who takes up smoking cigarettes or eating bad food. A personal choice.
But if the athlete is part of an organization that does not allow steroids, blood doping or whatever type of physical enhancement, then the rules should be followed, and the organization should police itself.
As far as the breaking of records. With or without steroids, modern players have weight training and better nutrition to assist them in the quest for better athletic performance. But, does that make them better hitters?
When I played Little League ball, I was one of the better hitters on the team. I played a couple of seasons of softball in my 30's. After a few games, I got back in my hitting groove, just like when I was kid. After a 10 year lay off, This past summer I played in an over 40 softball league. Through weight training, I am stronger, and it took a few games to regain my skill as a hitter. I may have been able to hit the ball further, but my batting percentage still stayed about the same as when I was a kid.
Either you have it or you don't. As Art has posted before, a bodybuilder may be fit and muscular, but can he play offensive line for the Patriots? Barry Bonds can hit with or without steroids. He might hit the ball a bit further with the steroids, but his hitting skill is there, either way.
As far as records falling, Wayne Gretsky shattered scoring records in the NHL. Maurice "the Rocket" Richard scored 50 goals in 50 games in the 1940's. It was finally matched by Mike Bossy years later before Gretsky scored 92 goals in 80 games in 1982. The arguement is that in the Rocket's day, there were only 6 teams, and the players were the best of the best. In 1982, with NHL league expansion, some "old schoolers" feel the the talent was diluted, some rules had changed and that goal scoring was easier, so Gretsky's record was not that meaningful. I believe Gretsky's talent would have made him a great goal scorer, no matter what era he played.
It took Roger Maris more games to hit 61. Does that mean the record was not broken?

Posted by: Audley at October 14, 2005 8:22 AM

My sentiments!
Similar to the 2 four years Term for the Presidents we should have two 6 years Terms for the Senators and House Representative. This should reduce corruption and Power Plays.

No matching funds either. All the money must be raised from State constituents.

After completion of term they may not hold Public agency employment for atleast 10 yeras.

I can say a lot more but this could be the start.

Sattar

Posted by: Sattar at October 13, 2005 9:58 PM

Senate Reasoning

October 13, 2005 08:19 PM

Comments

Post a comment