I thought it was interesting that DeVaney specifically mentioned the rather noticeable change in McGwire's swing. I've seen that talked about here from Ray DP, perhaps?

Glad this got posted. Russ Roberts is the man, and EconTalk is a very neat weekly podcast.

Here in St. Louis, McGwire talks incessantly about his swing and the influence that Doug Rader had on it. Some of that is defense against steroids accusations, of course, but some of it is not; if you look at clips, you see an obvious change. The interesting thing about the interview here is that DeVaney talks about McGwire's changed swing in exactly the same terms that Mark uses. Both talk about the uppercut and a special motion to give the ball extra backspin, so it will go farther. That's interesting to me. An outside observer with baseball experience saw the same thing in McGwire's changed swing that McGwire says he was doing. DeVaney also attributes this "new" sort of swing to Barry Bonds when he started hitting all the taters. Is there anyone here who is enough of a baseball mechanics guy to check this out? I most certainly cannot. - Brock Hanke

Oh no. DeVaney's analysis of HR hitting has been floating around for years, and is completely wrong. He doesn't understand that there was a large increase in HR hitting in 1993-94 that was then sustained. And you can't possibly analyze Bonds, McGwire and Sosa without understanding that context.

And of course there's the little problem that we now know that at least two of these guys used steroids (if not exactly how much benefit that produced).

The comments beneath the DeVaney's printed excerpts are every bit as interesting as his own. Lots of arguments from the peanut gallery (which includes several scientists) who point out DeVaney's selective reasoning. This is not your average website, where the responses tend to be "Wow, what a genius!" and "Yo' momma!" and very little in between. Since this was a podcast that was just posted late Monday night, I'll be interested to read DeVaney's responses to his critics.

Personally, I liked his theory that alternating walking with short bursts of sprinting are better for you than jogging, because that's what I do myself, and for the same reason: Jogging alone is unbelievably boring, not to mention it can wreck your knees if you do it on concrete.

Didn't listen to the audio, but the summary makes it sound like he's an advocate of the caveman diet.....and jogging is only bad for you if you do it with running shoes. Barefoot joggers have almost no injuries.

jogging is only bad for you if you do it with running shoes

For the same reason that sprints aren't as bad for you. Sprinters don't land on their heels. Neither do barefoot joggers. All the shock-absorbing technology in the world can't absorb enough of the shock to make heel-to-toe running good for your feet, ankles, knees and hips. Yet miraculously, simply running on the balls of your feet does.

I didn't see any comments that cogently rebutted DeVaney's analysis of the effects steroids had on home runs.

We have

arnold - Doesn't give any argument other than "this guy's a pinhead", sprinting, and "the athletes are doing it, so it must work." None of those address the analysis DeVaney put forth.

Trent - Gives a very good argument regarding logical fallacies, but unfortunately it's tied to the strawman of "Simply because all the players who hit 50+ home runs in a season (of late) took steroids, does not imply that all players who took steroids should hit 50+ home runs in a season." Who's talking about 50+ home runs? DeVaney's analysis is of rate stats, across the board.

skeptic - Addresses McVaney's understanding of slow twitch/fast twitch muscles, but ultimately believes his claim about steroids' effect on home runs.

Neal W. - Questions McVaney's claim that steroids don't help build mass, but likewise ultimately believes his claim about steroids and home runs.

Mort - Nitpicks one statement, but otherwise doesn't give any solid arguments against DeVaney's analysis of the numbers.

Terry - Addresses the focus on home runs. Certainly a point, but a completely different discussion.

Jake Russ - This to me was the only decent argument. It deals with the data DeVaney uses for his analysis. I wouldn't mind seeing this argument explored here at BBTF. But at essence what DeVaney was doing was attempting to isolate power, and as he mentions SLG would work just fine, as would, of course, Isolated Power.

Trevor - Gives anecdotal evidence and abstains from commenting on steroids.

benghis - Trots out "The players are doing it, and they must know best."

Matthew - Makes a nice point about a variety of PEDs and the difficulty in empirical testing, but again doesn't rebut any of DeVaney's analysis.

The only scientific arguments made against DeVaney all concerned his take on evolutionary dieting, a controversial, murky subject for which everyone agrees there's no hard data, only theory and hypothesis.

Manny Lee. Started for the Jays at SS for the better part of five years because he hit .291 in 1988 and could field a bit. Career high of 7 steals, although he rarely ran at all. I love his 1991 (on a team that won its division). Had 445 AB, no homers, 104 hits and 107 Ks.

DeVaney also attributes this "new" sort of swing to Barry Bonds when he started hitting all the taters. Is there anyone here who is enough of a baseball mechanics guy to check this out? I most certainly cannot.

In 2001 (I think; going off memory) ESPN did an interview with Bonds in which Bonds talked about how he had worked on changing his swing to hit more home runs. They showed film clips of him from a few years earlier, and the change was pretty obvious.

Just as obviously, other factors can't be ruled out.

I didn't see any comments that cogently rebutted DeVaney's analysis of the effects steroids had on home runs.

It's not that people have given up as much as we're all just tired of the debate, what with opening day in less than a week.

It's not that people have given up as much as we're all just tired of the debate, what with opening day in less than a week.

I was talking about the comments in the link, which Andy felt contained many sound arguments by scientists regarding DeVaney's selective reasoning. About evolutionary diets, yes. About steroids' effects on home runs, IMO, no.

Late-career Bonds had the greatest swing I've ever seen. Early-career Bonds did not.

Sosa's second great power surge came when he started hitting the ball a lot more the other way. I'm not sure I'd say the swing changed as much as he stopped stepping in the bucket on every swing. Of course it's possible that increased strength from steroids made it possible for him to drive the ball the other way and he changed his approach in response to that.