General Sports Talk

Being a rather new Floridian, it is exciting to be a sports fan here. The Miami Heat in the championship, the Florida Panthers in the Stanley Cup, and the Tampa Bay Rays with the best record in baseball.

But in other news, GO KNIGHTS!!

.

the Heat can still make history this time in a good way

no # 8 seed has ever won an NBA Championship

neither has a # 7 seed for that matter

the '94/'95 Rockets are the only #6 seed ever to win a Championship

.

I was amazed at how anti-climatic last night's game was. I kept waiting for the Celtics to make their run and it just never happened.

Go Nuggets.

Quote: gordonm888

tuttigym, maybe you can answer some questions:

Do you have a friend or family member or someone that you are a fan of who has been accused of using steroids to enhance athletic performance? Do you have some emotional or personal stake in this discussion of anabolic steroids?

Why do you care so much about whether people consider anabolic steroid use to be shameful behavior?

*************
And to answer one of your lines of questioning: obviously, if you or I or someone who is not a very good athlete takes anabolic steroids, it does not enable us to hit N home runs in the major leagues. Steroids increase muscle mass and stamina and allow quicker recovery after a period of exertion -so when elite athletes like Barry Bonds take steroids they are sometimes able to accomplish unprecedented performance levels, like 80 home runs in a season. But that does not mean that Pudge Rodriguez must certainly be able to hit 50 home runs in a season just by taking anabolic steroids.

When athletes break both federal laws and the rules of baseball by taking anabolic steroids - and do so in secrecy - they are seeking a competitive advantage over other players. The pitchers that Bonds hit all of those steroids-assisted home runs off of have a right to feel that they could have had a better career if Bonds hadn't cheated. At its core, this is a simple issue of right vs wrong; of honorable behavior vs. dishonorable behavior, of compliance with the rules vs. sneaking in secrecy to violate the rules. If you really don't understand that this is an ethics issue then no amount of yakkety-yak on this forum can help you to understand why people don't respect the athletes that used steroids. We should just all agree that we disagree and move on from this unproductive discussion.
link to original post

Some great and fair questions, so:

1. No, to "friend or family member."

2. No, to "personal stake." Not sure what you mean by "emotional stake." My basic reasons for any conversation about steroids and HR's is not about breaking the rules or cheating but because the baseball players that have been so vilified do, IMO belong in the HOF because of their skilled achievements and that steroids did not affect those particular skills. So that while roids can build muscle mass (with highly intensive weight training), the skill of hitting HR's or just hitting Major League pitching is not something that is directly linked. Visual acuity, instaneous and accurate reflexes, batting mechanics, and pitch recognition are skill components not enhanced by steroids. For me, it is a bum unjustified rap. Centering HR's on "muscle mass" makes no logical sense. If one were to look at the various body types and structures of current baseball players and their HR achievements, they are nowhere near similar. They are tall, slender, short, squat, pudgy, and even overweight. I personally am quite confident that if Ozzie Albies were to take roids, he would not hit 50+ HR's and that BA would be elevated by 20+ points. What I am saying here is that an average Major League player (.235-.250 BA with 10-15 HR's is not going to turn into a Barry Bonds and put-up HOF numbers regardless of any use of PED's that might increase muscle mass.

3. You miss-interpret my position on steroids as "shameful behavior." Abusing drugs and PED's is wrong and stupid and self-destructive. I am against such. period.

4. First, I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that roids "increase stamina." They do increase recovery time from certain kinds of exercise usually related to weight training. IMO the overuse the term "muscle mass" is also somewhat misleading. We all have physiological maximums, i.e., height, vital capacity, even muscle size or mass. If an athlete weight trains for a year and reaches his personal physical max but continues to train to maintain that max, steroids will not help him to build more muscle mass. To put that statement in perspective (I hope I won't be suspended here), the male penis is a muscle, and no matter how much one might "exercise" that muscle, it will not gain muscle mass or size even using steroids.

5. Your analysis of Rodriquez is absolutely correct and bolsters my point that roids don't increase skills. As far as Bonds goes, there has not been produced a causal link between steroids and skill achievement (broken record here, sorry). Do you think that using roids might increase 3 point efficiency in basketball or putting efficiency in golf or any kind of efficiency where precision and hand-eye coordination are the principle ingredients for success?

6. Again, you are misinterpreting my position. Let me be clear, breaking rules to achieve an advantage is wrong, and I do NOT condone those practices. But as you know, sometimes the "rules" themselves are wrong and overgeneralizations are the results. So, should roids be banned and illegal in sport? YES. Should Bonds and others whose achievements are HOF worthy be banned? NO because of my previous arguments.

BYW, to my knowledge, no baseball athlete has been prosecuted for using and breaking that federal law. Why not?

7. In many instances, "right and wrong" is quite subjective and never accountable. It is not limited to sport.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: gordonm888

tuttigym, maybe you can answer some questions:

Do you have a friend or family member or someone that you are a fan of who has been accused of using steroids to enhance athletic performance? Do you have some emotional or personal stake in this discussion of anabolic steroids?

Why do you care so much about whether people consider anabolic steroid use to be shameful behavior?

*************
And to answer one of your lines of questioning: obviously, if you or I or someone who is not a very good athlete takes anabolic steroids, it does not enable us to hit N home runs in the major leagues. Steroids increase muscle mass and stamina and allow quicker recovery after a period of exertion -so when elite athletes like Barry Bonds take steroids they are sometimes able to accomplish unprecedented performance levels, like 80 home runs in a season. But that does not mean that Pudge Rodriguez must certainly be able to hit 50 home runs in a season just by taking anabolic steroids.

When athletes break both federal laws and the rules of baseball by taking anabolic steroids - and do so in secrecy - they are seeking a competitive advantage over other players. The pitchers that Bonds hit all of those steroids-assisted home runs off of have a right to feel that they could have had a better career if Bonds hadn't cheated. At its core, this is a simple issue of right vs wrong; of honorable behavior vs. dishonorable behavior, of compliance with the rules vs. sneaking in secrecy to violate the rules. If you really don't understand that this is an ethics issue then no amount of yakkety-yak on this forum can help you to understand why people don't respect the athletes that used steroids. We should just all agree that we disagree and move on from this unproductive discussion.
link to original post

Some great and fair questions, so:

1. No, to "friend or family member."

2. No, to "personal stake." Not sure what you mean by "emotional stake." My basic reasons for any conversation about steroids and HR's is not about breaking the rules or cheating but because the baseball players that have been so vilified do, IMO belong in the HOF because of their skilled achievements and that steroids did not affect those particular skills. So that while roids can build muscle mass (with highly intensive weight training), the skill of hitting HR's or just hitting Major League pitching is not something that is directly linked. Visual acuity, instaneous and accurate reflexes, batting mechanics, and pitch recognition are skill components not enhanced by steroids. For me, it is a bum unjustified rap. Centering HR's on "muscle mass" makes no logical sense. If one were to look at the various body types and structures of current baseball players and their HR achievements, they are nowhere near similar. They are tall, slender, short, squat, pudgy, and even overweight. I personally am quite confident that if Ozzie Albies were to take roids, he would not hit 50+ HR's and that BA would be elevated by 20+ points. What I am saying here is that an average Major League player (.235-.250 BA with 10-15 HR's is not going to turn into a Barry Bonds and put-up HOF numbers regardless of any use of PED's that might increase muscle mass.

3. You miss-interpret my position on steroids as "shameful behavior." Abusing drugs and PED's is wrong and stupid and self-destructive. I am against such. period.

4. First, I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that roids "increase stamina." They do increase recovery time from certain kinds of exercise usually related to weight training. IMO the overuse the term "muscle mass" is also somewhat misleading. We all have physiological maximums, i.e., height, vital capacity, even muscle size or mass. If an athlete weight trains for a year and reaches his personal physical max but continues to train to maintain that max, steroids will not help him to build more muscle mass. To put that statement in perspective (I hope I won't be suspended here), the male penis is a muscle, and no matter how much one might "exercise" that muscle, it will not gain muscle mass or size even using steroids.

5. Your analysis of Rodriquez is absolutely correct and bolsters my point that roids don't increase skills. As far as Bonds goes, there has not been produced a causal link between steroids and skill achievement (broken record here, sorry). Do you think that using roids might increase 3 point efficiency in basketball or putting efficiency in golf or any kind of efficiency where precision and hand-eye coordination are the principle ingredients for success?

6. Again, you are misinterpreting my position. Let me be clear, breaking rules to achieve an advantage is wrong, and I do NOT condone those practices. But as you know, sometimes the "rules" themselves are wrong and overgeneralizations are the results. So, should roids be banned and illegal in sport? YES. Should Bonds and others whose achievements are HOF worthy be banned? NO because of my previous arguments.

BYW, to my knowledge, no baseball athlete has been prosecuted for using and breaking that federal law. Why not?

7. In many instances, "right and wrong" is quite subjective and never accountable. It is not limited to sport.

tuttigym
link to original post

No BASEBALL athlete has ever been prosecuted for PED use, but there have been other non-baseball athletes so prosecuted. Furthermore, PED prosecutions are long and involved and the standard of evidence is high. Careers ending in disgrace are usually sufficient for athletes. Suppliers are usually raked over the coals. As they should.

I always wondered what Billy Russell was on.

Quote: GenoDRPh

No BASEBALL athlete has ever been prosecuted for PED use, but there have been other non-baseball athletes so prosecuted. Furthermore, PED prosecutions are long and involved and the standard of evidence is high. Careers ending in disgrace are usually sufficient for athletes. Suppliers are usually raked over the coals. As they should.

link to original post

So you missed the posts railing about breaking federal law and "secretly cheating" and therefore not being held accountable? I personally do not think they should be prosecuted, but the posts infer that they should.

tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym
link to original post

Since momentum is a conserved quantity, all else being equal, “exit velocity” of the ball will drop as the speed of the pitch increases.

Quote: tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym
link to original post

The exit

I would think that the exit velocity of a batted baseball (that is struck squarely by a bat) would depend upon:
1. Pitch speed: which shows up as pitched ball momentum and translational energy.
2. The momentum of the bat = mass * velocity. A heavier bat would result in faster exit velocity of a batted ball.
3. The force (or energy) of the swing F = m v²; which depends upon how hard the player is driving the ball at the moment of contact. this is not only arm strength but how much torque the batter's body had as he swings the bat.
4. The elasticity of the ball. It has been shown that baseballs that are dry (say, because they are at high altitude such as Denver) are less elastic and therefore almost all of the force/momentum of the bat is converted into kinetic energy; i.e. into ball speed. However, baseballs that are 'humid' will absorb some of the energy by compression and deformation, resulting in a lower exit velocity.
5. To a much lesser extent, the elasticity of the bat itself. Bats can absorb some of the energy of the bat/ball collision as both heat and elastic deformation. This is why aluminum bats are different than wood bats - a hollow aluminum bat has different mechanical.
properties. But I imagine that the variability in materials properties of MLB bats is fairly low (although I think that there are at least two
different types of wood that MLB bats can be made of.)
6. To a small extent the spin of the pitched ball, because its rotational energy is available to be converted into post-collision translational energy. However rotational energy of the baseball is << the translational energy of the pitched baseball, so this might be ignoredin a approximate analysis.
7. Similarly, if the pitch is curving or moving from sideways in its trajectory, that will also have a small effect on the exit velocity.

Striking the ball squarely
There is a lot hidden in the assumption that the ball is hit squarely by the bat. If the batter is out in front of the pitch, or is a bit late hitting the pitch, then the bat head is not moving in a direction directly opposed to the velocity of the ball, and the physics will be different. If the bat head is a bit high or a bit low relative to the position of the pitched ball then the ball will be driven into the ground or popped up - and also the exit speed would be diminished.

The height of the pitch relative to height of the swing will also be important. These factors are all submerged in the assumption that the pitched ball is struck "squarely" by the bat.

Regarding questions #2 and #3, I don't know. I imagine that hitting the ball squarely and with perfect timing is very important. I think that batters do better at hitting home runs in batting practice (and home run competitions) because the pitch is thrown at relatively low speeds which allow the batters to time their swings better -even though a higher speed pitch has more energy to contribute to the bat ball collision. So there is a lot more than "bat speed" that goes into this.

Quote: tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym
link to original post

The exit

I would think that the exit velocity of a batted baseball (that is struck squarely by a bat) would depend upon:
1. Pitch speed: which shows up as pitched ball momentum and translational energy.
2. The momentum of the bat = mass * velocity. A heavier bat would result in faster exit velocity of a batted ball.
3. The force (or energy) of the swing F = m v²; which depends upon how hard the player is driving the ball at the moment of contact. this is not only arm strength but how much torque the batter's body had as he swings the bat.
4. The elasticity of the ball. It has been shown that baseballs that are dry (say, because they are at high altitude such as Denver) are less elastic and therefore almost all of the force/momentum of the bat is converted into kinetic energy; i.e. into ball speed. However, baseballs that are 'humid' will absorb some of the energy by compression and deformation, resulting in a lower exit velocity.
5. To a much lesser extent, the elasticity of the bat itself. Bats can absorb some of the energy of the bat/ball collision as both heat and elastic deformation. This is why aluminum bats are different than wood bats - a hollow aluminum bat has different mechanical.
properties. But I imagine that the variability in materials properties of MLB bats is fairly low (although I think that there are at least two
different types of wood that MLB bats can be made of.)
6. To a small extent the spin of the pitched ball, because its rotational energy is available to be converted into post-collision translational energy. However rotational energy of the baseball is << the translational energy of the pitched baseball, so this might be ignoredin a approximate analysis.
7. Similarly, if the pitch is curving or moving from sideways in its trajectory, that will also have a small effect on the exit velocity.

Striking the ball squarely
There is a lot hidden in the assumption that the ball is hit squarely by the bat. If the batter is out in front of the pitch, or is a bit late hitting the pitch, then the bat head is not moving in a direction directly opposed to the velocity of the ball, and the physics will be different. If the bat head is a bit high or a bit low relative to the position of the pitched ball then the ball will be driven into the ground or popped up - and also the exit speed would be diminished.

The height of the pitch relative to height of the swing will also be important. These factors are all submerged in the assumption that the pitched ball is struck "squarely" by the bat.

Regarding questions #2 and #3, I don't know. I imagine that hitting the ball squarely and with perfect timing is very important. I think that batters do better at hitting home runs in batting practice (and home run competitions) because the pitch is thrown at relatively low speeds which allow the batters to time their swings better -even though a higher speed pitch has more energy to contribute to the bat ball collision. So there is a lot more than "bat speed" that goes into this.

Quote: tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym
link to original post

I would think that the exit velocity of a batted baseball (that is struck squarely by a bat) would depend upon:
1. Pitch speed: which shows up as pitched ball momentum and translational energy.
2. The momentum of the bat = mass * velocity. A heavier bat would result in faster exit velocity of a batted ball.
3. The force (or energy) of the swing F = 1/2*m v²; which depends upon how hard the player is driving the ball at the moment of contact. this is not only arm strength but how much torque the batter's body had as he swings the bat.
4. The elasticity of the ball. It has been shown that baseballs that are dry (say, because they are at high altitude such as Denver) are less elastic and therefore almost all of the force/momentum of the bat is converted into kinetic energy; i.e. into ball speed. However, baseballs that are 'humid' will absorb some of the energy by compression and deformation at the moment of impact, resulting in a lower exit velocity.
5. To a much lesser extent, the elasticity of the bat itself. Bats can absorb some of the energy of the bat/ball collision as both heat and elastic deformation. This is why hollow aluminum bats are different than solid wood bats - a hollow aluminum bat has different mechanical properties. But I imagine that the variability in materials properties of MLB bats is fairly low (although I think that there are at least two different types of wood that MLB bats can be made of.)
6. To a small extent the spin of the pitched ball, because its rotational energy is available to be converted into post-collision translational energy. However rotational energy of the baseball is << the translational energy of the pitched baseball, so this might be ignored in a approximate analysis.
7. Similarly, if the pitch is curving or moving from sideways in its trajectory, that will also have a small effect on the exit velocity.

Striking the ball squarely
There is a lot hidden in the assumption that the ball is hit squarely by the bat. If the batter is out in front of the pitch, or is a bit late hitting the pitch, then the bat head is not moving in a direction directly opposed to the velocity of the ball, and the physics will be different. If the bat head is a bit high or a bit low relative to the position of the pitched ball then the ball will be driven into the ground or popped up - and also the exit speed would be diminished.

The height of the pitch relative to height of the swing will also be important. These factors are all submerged in the assumption that the pitched ball is struck "squarely" by the bat.
******************************
Regarding questions #2 and #3, I don't know. I imagine that hitting the ball squarely and with perfect timing is very important. I think that batters do better at hitting home runs in batting practice (and home run competitions) because the pitch is thrown at relatively low speeds which allow the batters to time their swings better -even though a higher speed pitch has more energy to contribute to the bat+ball collision. So there is a lot more than "bat speed" that goes into this.

.

Mark McGwire & Barry Bonds before and after steroids:



.




.

Thing is, take pictures of 30 non steroid users at age 23, then age 35 and look at the frequency of blow ups…….

Quote: mcallister3200

Thing is, take pictures of 30 non steroid users at age 23, then age 35 and look at the frequency of blow ups…….
link to original post

yeah, but I think you're talking about guys getting older and getting fat - happens to so many
these guys are not fat

take another look at McGwire's right forearm - gigantic

.

Big Mac was an Olympian and hit 49 home runs his rookie year. After several injury-plagued seasons, he began taking various things to revive his career. He was a lanky third baseman who occasionally filled in at short, iirc.

Quote: billryan

Big Mac was an Olympian and hit 49 home runs his rookie year. After several injury-plagued seasons, he began taking various things to revive his career
link to original post

he hit 70 homers in '98 - a 43% increase over his rookie year total - and he hit 65 in '99

the dude was crushing Babe Ruth - looking at just that stat - the most the Babe ever hit in one year was 60

who is going to believe that without steroids Mac was in the same league as Babe Ruth_______?_________methinks not too many

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: billryan

Big Mac was an Olympian and hit 49 home runs his rookie year. After several injury-plagued seasons, he began taking various things to revive his career
link to original post

he hit 70 homers in '98 - a 43% increase over his rookie year total - and he hit 65 in '99

the dude was crushing Babe Ruth - the most the Babe ever hit in one year was 60

who is going to believe that without steroids Mac was in the same league as Babe Ruth_______?_________methinks not too many

.
link to original post

If Babe had spent some time in the gym, he might have been popping numbers like that, as well. Steroids don't make forearms like that. They give you the ability to build them, but you still have to put in an incredible amount of work. They are illegal, and using them is most certainly cheating, but you don't just pop a pill and turn it into the Hulk. They are called performance enhancing, not performance creating.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: tuttigym

gordon888, Please answer a couple of questions that might help me clarify my thinking.

1. It seems that every time a HR is hit the "exit velocity" is given. Is "exit velocity" the product of pitch speed and bat speed?

2. To my knowledge, bat speed is never given. For me, that info is more important than "exit velocity." Here is why: a ground ball with X "exit velocity" is never going to leave the park, so that info is, for me irrelevant. On the other hand, a 400 foot HR could be the result of different bat speeds depending upon the pitch speed. Do you agree? (For now, let's forget the launch angle)

3. Wouldn't it make sense to determine the bat speed of every HR against the different types of pitches and pitch speed for training purposes? There may be many players that are deficient in average bat speed that could benefit from such info and train accordingly. Do you agree?

Based on your answers, I will comment and perhaps expand my thoughts.

tuttigym
link to original post

The exit

I would think that the exit velocity of a batted baseball (that is struck squarely by a bat) would depend upon:
1. Pitch speed: which shows up as pitched ball momentum and translational energy.
2. The momentum of the bat = mass * velocity. A heavier bat would result in faster exit velocity of a batted ball.
3. The force (or energy) of the swing F = m v²; which depends upon how hard the player is driving the ball at the moment of contact. this is not only arm strength but how much torque the batter's body had as he swings the bat.
4. The elasticity of the ball. It has been shown that baseballs that are dry (say, because they are at high altitude such as Denver) are less elastic and therefore almost all of the force/momentum of the bat is converted into kinetic energy; i.e. into ball speed. However, baseballs that are 'humid' will absorb some of the energy by compression and deformation, resulting in a lower exit velocity.
5. To a much lesser extent, the elasticity of the bat itself. Bats can absorb some of the energy of the bat/ball collision as both heat and elastic deformation. This is why aluminum bats are different than wood bats - a hollow aluminum bat has different mechanical.
properties. But I imagine that the variability in materials properties of MLB bats is fairly low (although I think that there are at least two
different types of wood that MLB bats can be made of.)
6. To a small extent the spin of the pitched ball, because its rotational energy is available to be converted into post-collision translational energy. However rotational energy of the baseball is << the translational energy of the pitched baseball, so this might be ignoredin a approximate analysis.
7. Similarly, if the pitch is curving or moving from sideways in its trajectory, that will also have a small effect on the exit velocity.

Striking the ball squarely
There is a lot hidden in the assumption that the ball is hit squarely by the bat. If the batter is out in front of the pitch, or is a bit late hitting the pitch, then the bat head is not moving in a direction directly opposed to the velocity of the ball, and the physics will be different. If the bat head is a bit high or a bit low relative to the position of the pitched ball then the ball will be driven into the ground or popped up - and also the exit speed would be diminished.

The height of the pitch relative to height of the swing will also be important. These factors are all submerged in the assumption that the pitched ball is struck "squarely" by the bat.

Regarding questions #2 and #3, I don't know. I imagine that hitting the ball squarely and with perfect timing is very important. I think that batters do better at hitting home runs in batting practice (and home run competitions) because the pitch is thrown at relatively low speeds which allow the batters to time their swings better -even though a higher speed pitch has more energy to contribute to the bat ball collision. So there is a lot more than "bat speed" that goes into this.
link to original post

Thank you all for taking the time to answer my questions. I will need a little time to digest and possibly inquire more.

My most basic question is: Why is no bat speed at impact provided with the same frequency at "exit velocity"? Whether or not the pitched ball is hit "squarely," and if the resultant collision results in a HR, measuring the bat speed along with the launch angle, which is also reported, would, for me, provide more clarity.

More later, but thanks again.

tuttigym

.
interesting - to me anyway

a comparison (lifetime) Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth

without discounting the cheating advantage Bonds gained from steroids


________________Barry Bonds________________________________The Babe


BA______________ .298_______________________________________.342
OBP_____________.444_______________________________________.474_____________(On Base %)
SLG______________.607_______________________________________.690____________ (total bases per at bat)
HRs per game_____.255_______________________________________.285
RBI per game_____ .668_______________________________________.884


and many not be aware of how great a Pitcher The Babe was before it was decided he would be more valuable elsewhere


he went 94-46 winning 67.1% with a 2.28 era



𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘽𝘼𝘽𝙀 𝙒𝘼𝙎 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙆𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙒𝙊𝙍𝙇𝘿






.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
interesting - to me anyway

a comparison (lifetime) Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth

without discounting the cheating advantage Bonds gained from steroids


________________Barry Bonds________________________________The Babe


BA______________ .298_______________________________________.342
OBP_____________.444_______________________________________.474_____________(On Base %)
SLG______________.607_______________________________________.690____________ (total bases per at bat)
HRs per game_____.255_______________________________________.285
RBI per game_____ .668_______________________________________.884


and many not be aware of how great a Pitcher The Babe was before it was decided he would be more valuable elsewhere


in he went 21-10 winning 67.1% with a 2.28 era



𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘽𝘼𝘽𝙀 𝙒𝘼𝙎 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙆𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙒𝙊𝙍𝙇𝘿


.
link to original post

A very different time:

No players of color.
No players from foreign countries.
My guess is that the average fast ball was well below 90 mph.
My guess most pitchers had only two pitches.
My guess ball parks were smaller and so were the players.
No batting machines.

It was a simpler time with players that, overall, were less skilled and less fit.

So the Babe was "king" of a very small fiefdom.

Given the structure and composition of modern day baseball, Bonds accomplishments vs the Babe are quite remarkable. I am sorry you cannot see that.

tuttigym

.
no MLB player ever played the game with such a high degree of excellence as both a pitcher and a batter as did Babe Ruth

Shohei Ohtani is currently doing some great things along those lines but he is not currently at that level


https://bleacherreport.com/articles/11607-come-to-think-of-itbabe-ruth-was-the-greatest-of-all-time

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: billryan

Big Mac was an Olympian and hit 49 home runs his rookie year. After several injury-plagued seasons, he began taking various things to revive his career
link to original post

he hit 70 homers in '98 - a 43% increase over his rookie year total - and he hit 65 in '99

the dude was crushing Babe Ruth - looking at just that stat - the most the Babe ever hit in one year was 60

who is going to believe that without steroids Mac was in the same league as Babe Ruth_______?_________methinks not too many

.
link to original post

Just for argument, it does not seem unrealistic for someone that hit 49 HR's his rookie year to hit 60 which was as many as Ruth ever hit in a year.

Seems like there’s tons of guys who enter young hitting 10-15 a year and are 20-30 just a few years later.

OTOH, I’m not a statistician, but the cluster of 60 hr hitters in a small period with an equal amount to the entire history…..well it makes the m dog seem like a straight shooter in comparison.

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you all for taking the time to answer my questions. I will need a little time to digest and possibly inquire more.

My most basic question is: Why is no bat speed at impact provided with the same frequency at "exit velocity"? Whether or not the pitched ball is hit "squarely," and if the resultant collision results in a HR, measuring the bat speed along with the launch angle, which is also reported, would, for me, provide more clarity.

More later, but thanks again.

tuttigym
link to original post

I understand what you're driving at. But there is no single value of bat speed. The end of the bat is traveling faster than the "meat of the bat" which is traveling much faster than the part of the bat that is close to the batter's grip. The only bat speed that is meaningful in this discussion is the speed of that part of the bat that contacts the ball. And that would be difficult to measure because the pitched ball is obscuring the contact zone on the bat.

To a reasonably good approximation, the entire bat does have a single angular velocity around a central point which is usually something like the batter's elbows (or maybe his shoulders?). Think of the angular velocity as how long does it take the bat to move through 90 or 180 degrees of arc as it leaves the batter's shoulder and swings through the strike zone and then out into the follow-through of the swing. But since the end of the bat travels along a much longer arc than the handle of the bat, the end of the bat has a much higher translational speed*, which is what is measured by the doppler radar gun.

*translational speed is the term for what most people think of as "speed along a straight line pathway"

.
very interesting - to me anyway - story about how Aaron Rodgers soured on the Packers and vice versa
the Pack seemed to want to go with Jordan Love who has limited NFL experience - he's only played in 10 NFL games
this and other things made Rodgers unhappy and he's now with the Jets
he'll be 40 in December and I would estimate that there is only a small chance that he could perform there with the kind of greatness that is in his past

https://theathletic.com/4564360/2023/05/31/aaron-rodgers-packers-succession-trade/

.

.
"flopping" has become an art in the NBA - and quite a few are not very good at it

these two are among the worst I've ever seen - and are really quite comical

.


.


.

.

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: billryan

Big Mac was an Olympian and hit 49 home runs his rookie year. After several injury-plagued seasons, he began taking various things to revive his career
link to original post

he hit 70 homers in '98 - a 43% increase over his rookie year total - and he hit 65 in '99

the dude was crushing Babe Ruth - looking at just that stat - the most the Babe ever hit in one year was 60

who is going to believe that without steroids Mac was in the same league as Babe Ruth_______?_________methinks not too many

.
link to original post

Just for argument, it does not seem unrealistic for someone that hit 49 HR's his rookie year to hit 60 which was as many as Ruth ever hit in a year.
link to original post

Mac took off the last few days of the season to be with his wife for the birth of their first son. At the time, no one had hit 50 home runs
since 1965. When asked about missing out on a fifty-home run season, he said he was young, and they'd be plenty more chances.
Most people thought he was nuts, few thought he was correct.

.
in 2006 a book called "Game of Shadows" authored jointly by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams described Barry Bonds steroid usage and timeline in great detail

Bonds hit 37 homers in '98 when McGwire hit 70 and according to the book Bonds was jealous and began steroid use

he only had one really great year hitting homers before steroids when he hit 46 in '93

these are his HR totals for his first 10 years - 16,25,24,19,33,25,34, 46, 37, 33

Bond hit 73 homers in 2001

in that year he more than doubled the amount of homers he hit in any of his first 10 years except two - he almost doubled the 37 he hit in '94

the authors allege that by 2001 he was using 2 designer steroids known as "the cream" and the clear" - as well as insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate which is a fast acting steroid known as "mexican beans" - and also trenbolone which is a steroid created to improve the muscle growth of cattle


https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=3113127

.

Ummmm, allegedly.

But, the hall is a bunch of hypocrites here in any case. How the hell is David Ortiz in if they are all out based on probable steroid use?

Someone who had an extremely mediocre case by the primary predictive HOF metric, career WAR (few under 60 make it), other statistics also questionable, zero defensive contribution, failed steroid test in 2003. The only HOF qualification he hit was 500 home runs.

W..T….F

These writers pick and choose who these things stick to based on who was an asshole to them and who was a nice guy, pathetic.

Quote: mcallister3200

Ummmm, allegedly.

But, the hall is a bunch of hypocrites here in any case. How the hell is David Ortiz in if they are all out based on probable steroid use?

Someone who had an extremely mediocre case by the primary predictive HOF metric, career WAR (few under 60 make it), other statistics also questionable, zero defensive contribution, failed steroid test in 2003. The only HOF qualification he hit was 500 home runs.

W..T….F

These writers pick and choose who these things stick to based on who was an asshole to them and who was a nice guy, pathetic.
link to original post

There were valid questions regarding the scientific validity of David Ortiz's supposed positive test, which at the time and under the conditions it was conducted, was not sanctionable anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz

And he didn’t have a hall of famer either way if Schilling didn’t.

He got elected on a very questionably because people like him, period.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you all for taking the time to answer my questions. I will need a little time to digest and possibly inquire more.

My most basic question is: Why is no bat speed at impact provided with the same frequency at "exit velocity"? Whether or not the pitched ball is hit "squarely," and if the resultant collision results in a HR, measuring the bat speed along with the launch angle, which is also reported, would, for me, provide more clarity.

More later, but thanks again.

tuttigym
link to original post

I understand what you're driving at. But there is no single value of bat speed. The end of the bat is traveling faster than the "meat of the bat" which is traveling much faster than the part of the bat that is close to the batter's grip. The only bat speed that is meaningful in this discussion is the speed of that part of the bat that contacts the ball. And that would be difficult to measure because the pitched ball is obscuring the contact zone on the bat.

To a reasonably good approximation, the entire bat does have a single angular velocity around a central point which is usually something like the batter's elbows (or maybe his shoulders?). Think of the angular velocity as how long does it take the bat to move through 90 or 180 degrees of arc as it leaves the batter's shoulder and swings through the strike zone and then out into the follow-through of the swing. But since the end of the bat travels along a much longer arc than the handle of the bat, the end of the bat has a much higher translational speed*, which is what is measured by the doppler radar gun.

*translational speed is the term for what most people think of as "speed along a straight line pathway"
link to original post

Again, thanks for the direct very interesting response. However, (there is always a "however"} club head speed is measured all the time at professional tournaments or other significant golf competitions where the club head speed is revealed at impact as well as ball speed, and spin rates. That technology is certainly available to MLB and would be invaluable to all conversations. For me, it would open up real hitting research and provide answers to unasked questions.

Last night Ozzie Albies hit a 345 ft HR with half a swing to a short right field "porch." Doing that consistently would put him in the record books.

tuttigym

The Saudis are now trying to do to soccer what they have tried to do to golf. They apparently are signing Benzema, one of the best players in the world, to a meager $400 million contract for two years. They already gave Ronaldo a similar contract. Maybe they’ll offer Mbappe a $ billion?

.
a blast from the past - Dr. J - hard to believe he retired 36 years ago

he was THE most fun player ever to watch imo

.


.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
a blast from the past - Dr. J - hard to believe he retired 36 years ago

he was THE most fun player ever to watch imo

.

.
link to original post

He wasn't the best player of all time but he was certainly the most entertaining. It's not easy to find, but hunt it down and watch the fourth quarter of the last ABA game ever. Dr. J wanted to win one for the fans and wasn't going to let a silly thing like being down by twenty interfere with it.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
very interesting - to me anyway - story about how Aaron Rodgers soured on the Packers and vice versa
the Pack seemed to want to go with Jordan Love who has limited NFL experience - he's only played in 10 NFL games
this and other things made Rodgers unhappy and he's now with the Jets
he'll be 40 in December and I would estimate that there is only a small chance that he could perform there with the kind of greatness that is in his past

https://theathletic.com/4564360/2023/05/31/aaron-rodgers-packers-succession-trade/

.
link to original post

speaking of great quarterbacks,who thinks tom Brady will be going to the raiders since their quarterback failed his physical? Brady will be with his old coach. Seen a sports book offering 2:1 odds on this. Think Brady is 45

Quote: avianrandy

Quote: lilredrooster

.
very interesting - to me anyway - story about how Aaron Rodgers soured on the Packers and vice versa
the Pack seemed to want to go with Jordan Love who has limited NFL experience - he's only played in 10 NFL games
this and other things made Rodgers unhappy and he's now with the Jets
he'll be 40 in December and I would estimate that there is only a small chance that he could perform there with the kind of greatness that is in his past

https://theathletic.com/4564360/2023/05/31/aaron-rodgers-packers-succession-trade/

.
link to original post

speaking of great quarterbacks,who thinks tom Brady will be going to the raiders since their quarterback failed his physical? Brady will be with his old coach. Seen a sports book offering 2:1 odds on this. Think Brady is 45
link to original post

I think it’s unlikely considering Raiders owner Mark Davis announced a week ago an agreement for Brady to be a minority owner of the team, pending NFL approval.

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: avianrandy

Quote: lilredrooster

.
very interesting - to me anyway - story about how Aaron Rodgers soured on the Packers and vice versa
the Pack seemed to want to go with Jordan Love who has limited NFL experience - he's only played in 10 NFL games
this and other things made Rodgers unhappy and he's now with the Jets
he'll be 40 in December and I would estimate that there is only a small chance that he could perform there with the kind of greatness that is in his past

https://theathletic.com/4564360/2023/05/31/aaron-rodgers-packers-succession-trade/

.
link to original post

speaking of great quarterbacks,who thinks tom Brady will be going to the raiders since their quarterback failed his physical? Brady will be with his old coach. Seen a sports book offering 2:1 odds on this. Think Brady is 45
link to original post

I think it’s unlikely considering Raiders owner Mark Davis announced a week ago an agreement for Brady to be a minority owner of the team, pending NFL approval.
link to original post

Agree it’s unlikely. But give me 20-1 odds and I’d bet Brady plays an NFL game this upcoming season. I think his future part ownership makes it more likely he plays for the Raiders, not less likely. You think the NFL wouldn’t like it for the TV ratings his first game would garner?

If Jimmy G can’t play the Raiders are in big trouble.

I'd imagine it is against the rules for an owner to be an active player. Baseball doesn't even allow owners in the dugout during games.
Ted Turner tried to manage the Braves and wasn't allowed.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: avianrandy

Quote: lilredrooster

.
very interesting - to me anyway - story about how Aaron Rodgers soured on the Packers and vice versa
the Pack seemed to want to go with Jordan Love who has limited NFL experience - he's only played in 10 NFL games
this and other things made Rodgers unhappy and he's now with the Jets
he'll be 40 in December and I would estimate that there is only a small chance that he could perform there with the kind of greatness that is in his past

https://theathletic.com/4564360/2023/05/31/aaron-rodgers-packers-succession-trade/

.
link to original post

speaking of great quarterbacks,who thinks tom Brady will be going to the raiders since their quarterback failed his physical? Brady will be with his old coach. Seen a sports book offering 2:1 odds on this. Think Brady is 45
link to original post

I think it’s unlikely considering Raiders owner Mark Davis announced a week ago an agreement for Brady to be a minority owner of the team, pending NFL approval.
link to original post

Agree it’s unlikely. But give me 20-1 odds and I’d bet Brady plays an NFL game this upcoming season. I think his future part ownership makes it more likely he plays for the Raiders, not less likely. You think the NFL wouldn’t like it for the TV ratings his first game would garner?

If Jimmy G can’t play the Raiders are in big trouble.
link to original post

TB12 keeps saying he's retired, but nobody's listening. In addition, the NFL constitution prevents an owner from playing in a game, Rumor also has it that before the NFL owners approve TB12's minority ownership, they will mandate he files retirement papers first,

.
as great as the Nuggets are - they still had a losing record on the road in the regular season - they were 19-22
they were a fantastic 34-7 at home - 83% wins - awesome
not saying that this means that they will lose to the Heat in Miami - just saying
but this kind of difference - but maybe not usually that extreme - occurs fairly often in the NBA and also in college ball
another example is the Grizzlies 35-6 at home and 16-25 away
85% wins at home - awesome

in '21/'22 Mississippi State was 14-3 at home and 1-10 on the road
LSU was 15-2 at home and 2-8 on the road
this is really extreme

there are lots of other examples

.

When the Nuggets are good, they usually dominate at home. The thin air may be more significant than some think.

.
I believe the extreme home/away thing can be a great betting angle - especially if both teams show it
a few times it is not fully reflected in the lines
the best thing about it is it's not hardcore handicapping - it's pretty easy to find - but when I did it I couldn't find a lot of picks - just a few
I'm not about going deep, deep into the teams and racking by brain to find a pick I like
.

Historically Nuggets have the largest home court advantage in history. The second highest elevation in the league, Utah, is #3. Not coincidence. The elevation will be a non factor rest of series though, biggest factor is in regular season teams coming through for one game.

In game 1, there’s one play at 3:00 in the video I’ll post below and 4:55 of the first quarter that, to me, was clearly a “not acclimated yet” moment: rather than sprinting alongside Aaron Gordon after a Miami miss, Jimmy Butler immediately calls for a switch with the 6-3 Gabe Vincent…...who immediately got ragdolled into the basket.



To me only one of 4 possibilities there: Jimmy Butler is lazy, dumb, out of shape, or not acclimatized to the elevation yet. No one would ever accuse Jimmy of being out of shape, lazy, or stupid.

Jokic is such a genius, numerous times he scans the floor right away, sees they have a size mismatch somewhere, and stays on the perimeter so that his man will not be able to provide any rim protection/secondary help.

Quote: mcallister3200

Jokic is such a genius, numerous times he scans the floor right away, sees they have a size mismatch somewhere, and stays on the perimeter so that his man will not be able to provide any rim protection/secondary help.

he's The Great White Hope

he's actually Larry Bird's unacknowledged son

it's not well known but Bird took a vacation in Serbia in 1994 -




.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: mcallister3200

Jokic is such a genius, numerous times he scans the floor right away, sees they have a size mismatch somewhere, and stays on the perimeter so that his man will not be able to provide any rim protection/secondary help.

he's The Great White Hope

he's actually Larry Bird's unacknowledged son

it's not well known but Bird took a vacation in Serbia in 1994 -




.
link to original post

This isn’t going to go over well with folks who can’t pronounce the letter “R,” but he’s better right now than papa Bird ever was imo.

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: mcallister3200

Jokic is such a genius, numerous times he scans the floor right away, sees they have a size mismatch somewhere, and stays on the perimeter so that his man will not be able to provide any rim protection/secondary help.

he's The Great White Hope

he's actually Larry Bird's unacknowledged son

it's not well known but Bird took a vacation in Serbia in 1994 -




.
link to original post

This isn’t going to go over well with folks who can’t pronounce the letter “R,” but he’s better right now than papa Bird ever was imo.
link to original post

I just took a look at the stats - of course stats aren't everything - but they're very very close to each other - in fact I was pretty amazed at how close they were - considering that they play(ed) different positions

I think I would give a slight edge to Bird because of his greater value on the fast break - iirc also Bird stole the ball fairly often - I don't think Jokic does that - I could be wrong - I haven't watched him that much - but I don't recall him doing that

.

Bird really shone in the playoffs. Jokic might, but he hasn't yet.

His team hasn’t, he’s racking up triple doubles at a per game rate beyond anyone in playoff history. Larry’s all defensive teams/defense are something he was better at, admittedly at least half of my Bird watching “live” was post prime once his back was wrecked.

We’ll have to see how much team success Jokic has over the next few seasons. I think they’ll end up being an interesting similar historical debate. Bird’s titles were post prime Kareem and pre prime Jordan, LeBron post prime by the time Jokic at peak.

So neither will have beaten a top 5 all time player in their prime (ranking Russell and Wilt above Magic). Bird had 5 hall of famers on his best Celtics team…. don’t think we can argue Jokic has had anything close to the same type of help yet.