Performance "Enhancing" Drugs/Baseball/Home Runs
This is a false premise because:
1. There is NO empirical scientific evidence or study that proves the hypothesis.
2. No one, to my knowledge, has been able to solve these two math questions:
a. How much "strength" (in pounds or some form of recognized measurement) does it take to hit a 90 mph fastball 385 feet?
b. How is that "strength" MEASURED?
This thread is not to debate the merits of the rule of drug testing or whether the hypothesis is correct. It is strictly aimed at solving these math questions which will in turn perhaps give credence to the argument of PEDs and baseball.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
a. How much "strength" (in pounds or some form of recognized measurement) does it take to hit a 90 mph fastball 385 feet?
b. How is that "strength" MEASURED?
a. there are lots of variables that determine how far a batted ball will travel in addition to speed of the ball; some of the ones the batter has control over are the location the ball hits the bat, the angle of the bat and mass of the bat; ones he has no control over include weather, angle and spin and condition of the ball. When hit at an optimal angle, when contact is made at the optimal place on the bat, with a heavier bat, in Denver, the speed of the bat required to hit the ball over the fence is a lot lower than if the angle and contact is not optimal, bat is lighter and the game is in San Francisco
lots of great information from a google search on "baseball physics"
b. That "strength" is measured in number of home runs hit. Barry Bonds was a "stronger" home run hitter than George Brett; but Brett was a "stronger" home run hitter than the super heavyweight Olympic weightlifting Gold Medal winner, who despite being able to generate more power than any other human in the world isn't "strong" enough to hit a single home run against Major League pitching
-----
I know you said you were not bringing up the issue of whether the hypothesis is correct, but claim that drugs cannot help sports performance is completely ridiculous. If a team plays a Saturday night game that ends at 11:00 at night, then they're scheduled to play at 1:00 that same afternoon, do you really think saying a cup of coffee would enhance their performance is a false premise? How about if the Saturday night game goes 18 innings and ends at 2:00 in the morning?
If a player is hit in the knee by a 90mph fastball and can barely walk, do you really think it's a false premise to say a cortisone shot that helps them walk pain free would help them perform better?
You will never hit a home run if the bat is still in crossing the plate. Similarly it's extremely difficult to hit a stationary ball 385 feet. The ball travels with a specific velocity. The bat hits the ball in the opposite direction. Conservation of momemtum is roughly held. Generally, the closer to the end of a bat you hit the ball, the faster the bat is travelling.
So yeah, higher mental acuity gives you a better ability to time your bat and make contact. Higher strength allows you to increase bat speed. The mass of the bat matters as well as it enables the transfer of energy. Higher strength allows you to swing a heavier bat which will add distance. PEDS increase strength and allows you to transfer energy from your legs to your arms more efficiently.
It is estimated that a 94 mph fastball will travel a further 8 feet for each mph in bat speed.
The slowest home run this year in ball speed came from Brandon Snyder at 88.5 which hit Penske's pole at Fenway and travelled 312 feet.
The fastest home run this year in ball speed came from Mark Trumbo at 120.1 mph which travelled 475 feet at the OCo.
Major leagues hitters swing a bat between 70-85mph. The formula generally for bat speed is about .2 x (pitch speed) + 1.2 x (bat speed). The average fastball is about 83mph at the plate.
Quote: TomG
b. That "strength" is measured in number of home runs hit. Barry Bonds was a "stronger" home run hitter than George Brett; but Brett was a "stronger" home run hitter than the super heavyweight Olympic weightlifting Gold Medal winner, who despite being able to generate more power than any other human in the world isn't "strong" enough to hit a single home run against Major League pitching.Quote: tuttigym
So based on this statement, which I believe is true, real physical "strength" and hitting "strength" are unrelated, and physical "strength" is not a determining factor in hitting home runs and is not a primary factor in producing bat speed.
-----Quote: TomG
I know you said you were not bringing up the issue of whether the hypothesis is correct, but claim that drugs cannot help sports performance is completely ridiculous. If a team plays a Saturday night game that ends at 11:00 at night, then they're scheduled to play at 1:00 that same afternoon, do you really think saying a cup of coffee would enhance their performance is a false premise? How about if the Saturday night game goes 18 innings and ends at 2:00 in the morning?
If a player is hit in the knee by a 90mph fastball and can barely walk, do you really think it's a false premise to say a cortisone shot that helps them walk pain free would help them perform better?Quote: tuttigym
This analogy of using caffeine or cortisone, which "act" instantaneously, is not an apt parallel simply because the offending PED's, i.e. steroids must be used over a prolonged period of time and then with increased exercise sessions to "deliver" added mass and "strength." That is the prevailing thought and false premise.
BTW cortisone is an anti-inflamatory and would not prevent the associated swelling caused by the accumulation of fluid in the affected area nor does it act as an anesthetic to relieve pain.
Newton's 3rd law is definitely in effect; so are lift/drag/gravity/mass, just like principles of flight/aerodynamics.
A fastball with a slight underhand spin, with a freshly wound baseball (no mush/give, maximum bounce on impact), hit with the hardest part of the bat (again no mush to absorb the energy put on the ball by the pitcher) at a slight upwards angle (so as to clear the fence) but centered and the bat moving fast, gives the best pure use of the energy the pitcher put on the ball plus the velocity of the bat reflecting it into the stands.
Stitches are on the ball for 2 reasons; 1. to give the pitcher a good grasp on it. 2. to help the ball spiral as it comes off the bat, keeping it true longer through air resistance.
The following variables all decrease from the distance:
1. spin in a different direction can cause a less pure contact, and subtract from velocity vector added by bat.
2. slower ball has less reflective energy.
3. less than perfect ball can deform and lose velocity on contact with bat so less energy is deflected. (All balls deform to some extent when well hit; it's a question of how much).
4. bat density can be less than ideal, uneven by nature of wood, aluminum more even but less forgiving, missing "sweet spot" mentioned above, transferring less of the bat's energy to the ball, or absorbing too much of the ball's energy.
5. hitter can be moving the bat more slowly than his best, leaving less available velocity added to the ball.
6. hitter can hit before or after the plate, sliding the ball some way along the bat before it leaves and wasting energy. (might be microns but it's wasted for the purposes of this discussion).
7. hitter can hit less than dead on, leading to fouls into the stands, pop-ups, line drives, all of which had velocity but not angle for HR.
8. high air density, low altitude, high temperature, foul poles, outfield distance to fence, make HR hitting percentages arbitrary by ballpark. If the fans would come out in the winter, I bet they'd see a lot more HR's in the cold, less humid air.
Not one of those depends on PED's. Strength only comes into play in being able to repetitively put as much bat speed across the plate as a player's best, and maybe to have fine-motor control to change the bat trajectory a little in mid-swing without losing speed. Bat speed of a quick-reflexed but strength challenged person with extraordinary eye-hand coordination should outweigh pure strength every time. I would think most baseballers would be better on speed than on steroids if they're going to abuse something, but what do I know from baseball? maybe it's because they couldn't get away with speed for decades, but only lately are they testing for HGH, blood doping, steroids, stuff like that, and it's pure competitive edge that makes them do it.
Quote: tuttigymThere is a consensus premise that certain drugs/chemicals can actually "enhance" performance in BASEBALL that includes hitting more home runs.
This is a false premise because:
1. There is NO empirical scientific evidence or study that proves the hypothesis.
2. No one, to my knowledge, has been able to solve these two math questions:
a. How much "strength" (in pounds or some form of recognized measurement) does it take to hit a 90 mph fastball 385 feet?
b. How is that "strength" MEASURED?
This thread is not to debate the merits of the rule of drug testing or whether the hypothesis is correct. It is strictly aimed at solving these math questions which will in turn perhaps give credence to the argument of PEDs and baseball.
tuttigym
You are missing a few important factors:
1. PED's are proven to help in recovery from exercise and injury. This "abnormal" recovery is an advantage over players from the past and current players that don't use them. At the end of the year or at the end of a career when a normal human is worn out/down, players using PED's don't show those same affects. Barry Bonds being better in his 40's than he was in his 20's is a prime example with many others in the exact same boat.
PED's, including steroids produce muscle mass. Muscle mass produces a faster bat speed. Bat speed helps produce longer distances of ball travel. A ball that would have traveled only 365 feet to righ center for a fly out might travel 385 feet for a homerun with the help of the extra muscle mass produced while doing the same work/preparation as a player not on PED's
There is no math needed. It's a physical question that has been answered by physicians and scientists. I've seen the differences first hand when playing (up to College and recreationally afterward) and umpiring (Professional).
ZCore13
Quote: tuttigym
So based on this statement, which I believe is true, real physical "strength" and hitting "strength" are unrelated, and physical "strength" is not a determining factor in hitting home runs and is not a primary factor in producing bat speed.
Strength is always context specific. Taking a 1000g bat and accelerating it to a speed of 35 meters per second is "real physical 'strength.'" Just because it's a different strength than tackling a running back or throwing a javelin doesn't mean it isn't real
-----
If caffeine and cortisone enhance performance, they are performance enhancing drugs. When virtually every single person involved in the sport agrees certain anabolics also enhance performance, it because extremely silly to try to argue they don't
Oh.
------
I was going to write something, but ZCore hit all pertinent points. Steroids = strength = how hard you can hit the ball. The physical quantity (bat to ball) that you're looking for is "impulse" - force * time. There are several if not dozens of forces involved, but that's the most significant one that the user (batter) is directly involved with.
ZCore13
Quote: beachbumbabs
Not one of those depends on PED's. Strength only comes into play in being able to repetitively put as much bat speed across the plate as a player's best, and maybe to have fine-motor control to change the bat trajectory a little in mid-swing without losing speed. Bat speed of a quick-reflexed but strength challenged person with extraordinary eye-hand coordination should outweigh pure strength every time. I would think most baseballers would be better on speed than on steroids if they're going to abuse something, but what do I know from baseball? maybe it's because they couldn't get away with speed for decades, but only lately are they testing for HGH, blood doping, steroids, stuff like that, and it's pure competitive edge that makes them do it.
Now here is something that provides real insight into the steroids "myth" or false premise, i.e. reflexive bat speed "but strength challenged," hand-eye coordination, acute kinesthetic sense (bat trajectory changes to adjust to ball speed, flight, and direction), and fine motor control (skill). There is NO chemical or chemical cocktail that will do any of that either individually or in a coordinated combination.
More later.
tuttigym
Steroids will not make a baseball player. Let’s use an absurd example. Say Nareed takes a bunch of HGH and tries to outplay me. With her complete lack of skill in baseball, no amount of muscle or power is going to make her a better ball striker than I. Drugs don’t create skill or talent.
But for those with the skill or talent, it’ll certainly make a difference. I’ve always been a ball striker. I was always known as a hard hitter, of a smart hitter, as a guy that was going to send lasers into play and make something happen. I’ve never been known as a “power hitter”. I’m just not made that way. But one year I started doing construction. 8 months of lugging 80lb bags of quickrete and 70lb packs of shingles up ladders jacked me up, and using that exact same talent and skill set, balls started heading over fences.
Up until that point, I had played ball for 17 years. In those 17 years, I had sent exactly 1 ball over the fence. That first season after construction, I was neck and neck for the homerun lead, which I eventually lost late in the season. I think I had 9 HRs in just 15 games, all because of my extra muscle mass.
Strength alone means nothing. You’re right, you need a ton more skills and there are more forces involved than just “power”. But for those that already have the set (See: every pro ball player ever), steroids are a game changer.
About 10 years ago my nephew played Little League ball. He was pretty good, actually, but didn't really love it, he just liked it. But whatever. Anyhow, one spring he went to a baseball camp with the local AAA team, which at that time was the Phillies' team, the Red Barons. As chance would have it, my brother-in-law and I wound up sitting in the dugout next to Marc Bombard, the manager. And we watched the players and the kids run around, and throw and catch and hit, and we watched one player, I don't remember who it was: he was standing with a bat in one hand, and a ball in his glove on the other. And he was flipping the ball in the air, hitting a HUGE popup with the bat, and then circling and catching it, and doing it, over and over.
George (my BiL) mentioned to Bombard how impressive that looked; it really was impressive. The kid didn't miss. And Bombard said something along the lines of, "You see these guys? This is it. This is really the cream of the crop. This is the top 1% of the top 1% of baseball players IN THE WORLD. Most of them will never see the bigs. Maybe two or three of them will make a career. THAT is how hard it is. THAT is the difference between this level and the next."
And we see it all the time, the guys who they call "four A"; they hit the hell out of the ball in AAA, but that big looping swing just doesn't play in the majors. Think Travis Snyder, Steve Pearce, guys like that. Or they can blow the ball past the AAA guys, but they don't have that 4th pitch to turn to on the third round through the lineup in the 5th inning: James McDonald.
It is important to remember the starting point, before you start talking PEDs. If you've ever watched AAA Minor League ball, then you know that other than stadium size it is essentially the same game. The talent is incredible. And for 90% of those guys, it's the last stop.
Of that team, Turner Ward played for a while as a utility guy, and Kevin Orie made it, and a few of the pitchers: Duckworth, Byrd, and N. Figueroa. I'm sure there were others who were up and down. But his point was valid.
There are many things most people can do with a lot of practice. Someone here might be able to put in the incredible effort to become a top person in their field. Someone else might be able to play on the same course as a PGA golfer or same lanes as a PBA bowler, and hold their own. I would be willing to bet good money that nobody here, no matter how much practice can walk only the field and hit more than .100 against a major league pitcher.
I've been behind the plate when a pitcher was throwing a 97mph fastball and 92mph slider. It's SICK! And to a MLB player, its another day at the office, except that is why failing 7 out of 10 times makes you an All-Star.
ZCore13
Quote: FaceIt’s not a myth at all, or at least I’m failing to see your argument.
Steroids will not make a baseball player. Let’s use an absurd example. Say Nareed takes a bunch of HGH and tries to outplay me. With her complete lack of skill in baseball, no amount of muscle or power is going to make her a better ball striker than I. Drugs don’t create skill or talent.
But for those with the skill or talent, it’ll certainly make a difference. I’ve always been a ball striker. I was always known as a hard hitter, of a smart hitter, as a guy that was going to send lasers into play and make something happen. I’ve never been known as a “power hitter”. I’m just not made that way. But one year I started doing construction. 8 months of lugging 80lb bags of quickrete and 70lb packs of shingles up ladders jacked me up, and using that exact same talent and skill set, balls started heading over fences.
Up until that point, I had played ball for 17 years. In those 17 years, I had sent exactly 1 ball over the fence. That first season after construction, I was neck and neck for the homerun lead, which I eventually lost late in the season. I think I had 9 HRs in just 15 games, all because of my extra muscle mass.
Strength alone means nothing. You’re right, you need a ton more skills and there are more forces involved than just “power”. But for those that already have the set (See: every pro ball player ever), steroids are a game changer.
I guess you are failing to see that your accomplishments after your increase in strength defies the basis of my argument in that there were no chemicals necessary to enhance your HR performance. Otherwise everything else stated makes my argument. The only thing we will never know is what bat speed you generated prior to your increase in muscle mass, and what bat speed was managed after your "growth." Your anecdotal "evidence" only makes the case for a sensible weight training program which all teams pursue. And thanks for the affirmation in the last paragraph above (except for the "steroids/game changer" comment).
tuttigym
You're missing the point that if two people with the same basic build and some workout regiment and same work ethic and same basic recovery system do all the same stuff, except for one of them takes HGH and the other doesn't, one will become stronger than the other. And if they both started with the same skills, the player taking the HGH will end up hitting the ball harder and farther and/or throwing the ball harder.
I'm not sure why you aren't seeing this???
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13tuttigym,
You're missing the point that if two people with the same basic build and some workout regiment and same work ethic and same basic recovery system do all the same stuff, except for one of them takes HGH and the other doesn't, one will become stronger than the other. And if they both started with the same skills, the player taking the HGH will end up hitting the ball harder and farther and/or throwing the ball harder.
I'm not sure why you aren't seeing this???
ZCore13
For a good portion of the history of this forum, the longest thread was "the hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on passline bets", started by and argued for by tuttigym. Established mathematics and thousands of years of history was unable to sway the originator of that topic; there is no reason why simple logic would work here.
If we look at my career during the time I was competitive and took it seriously, you’d find me in rigorous training, practice, and dedication for maybe 6 months of the year. The other 6 months was mostly spent smoking weed and playing Final Fantasy VII, with maybe some snowboarding to fill in the gaps. I wasn’t at full potential, not even close. Working that construction job increased my “up time”, time that was spent improving my body, and decreased my downtime, time spent in front of the PlayStation. Obviously, the extra “training” paid dividends.
But these guys, training is their life. There is no downtime. It’s all about getting and keeping their bodies at peak performance. Once you refine your discipline, learn all the techniques, and put in all the effort, you’re left with your “100%”, you’re left with the maximum your body can produce.
Steroids raises that bar. Yes, I, who spent half the year getting soft, would have benefitted greatly from just a year round training regimen. These guys already do that. They are maxed out. Steroids take them to the next level.
Quote: tuttigym
I guess you are failing to see that your accomplishments after your increase in strength defies the basis of my argument in that there were no chemicals necessary to enhance your HR performance. Otherwise everything else stated makes my argument. The only thing we will never know is what bat speed you generated prior to your increase in muscle mass, and what bat speed was managed after your "growth." Your anecdotal "evidence" only makes the case for a sensible weight training program which all teams pursue. And thanks for the affirmation in the last paragraph above (except for the "steroids/game changer" comment).
No, I think what Face is saying is that his bat speed INCREASED with his weight training, as bat speed (primarily) and bat weight are the two major factors in being able to hit a home run. Steroids raise the ceiling on weight training and allows your body to heal faster which allows you to train for longer and allows you to become more strong which allows you to increase bat speed and to use a heavier bat which generates home runs.
Pretty simple really.
As for caffeine, it's actually very easy to up your caffeine intake via concetrated energy drinks. 5 hour energy for example is in a vial. It's very easy to down 3 of these and effectively drink 48 oz of coffee.
Quote: boymimboNo, I think what Face is saying is that his bat speed INCREASED with his weight training, as bat speed (primarily) and bat weight are the two major factors in being able to hit a home run. Steroids raise the ceiling on weight training and allows your body to heal faster which allows you to train for longer and allows you to become more strong which allows you to increase bat speed and to use a heavier bat which generates home runs.
Pretty simple really.
I wasn't even being so specific as saying it was BAT SPEED or POWER or WHATEVER. All I know, and what should be obvious, is that if all the intangibles are equal (intangibles equaling the "Skill and Talent", the hand-eye, the motor skills, etc), which they pretty much are at that level, then the one who has reached the highest physical level will be better at power moves like home run hitting.
Barry Bonds was a goddamn good player. He was a good player when he was 170lbs and at his physical peak. He gained recognition not by getting "better", he did so by getting "bigger". All his intangibles stayed the same, it was his physical stats, the ones whose bars were raised by the use of PEDs, that made him a record breaker.
Pretty simple, indeed
Quote: Zcore13Face is right on the money and Mosca is too. Saying that"s the top 1% of the top 1% is an overstatement as well.
There are many things most people can do with a lot of practice. Someone here might be able to put in the incredible effort to become a top person in their field. Someone else might be able to play on the same course as a PGA golfer or same lanes as a PBA bowler, and hold their own. I would be willing to bet good money that nobody here, no matter how much practice can walk only the field and hit more than .100 against a major league pitcher.
I've been behind the plate when a pitcher was throwing a 97mph fastball and 92mph slider. It's SICK! And to a MLB player, its another day at the office, except that is why failing 7 out of 10 times makes you an All-Star.
ZCore13
Hit it? I don't think I could CATCH it. In fact, I don't even think I could call the pitches.
Quote: tuttigymNow here is something that provides real insight into the steroids "myth" or false premise, i.e. reflexive bat speed "but strength challenged," hand-eye coordination, acute kinesthetic sense (bat trajectory changes to adjust to ball speed, flight, and direction), and fine motor control (skill). There is NO chemical or chemical cocktail that will do any of that either individually or in a coordinated combination.
If an athlete does have those skills, an increase in other attributes such as bat speed, accuracy, and resistance to fatigue and trauma, will definitely make them a much better player
There have been lots of baseball players throughout history who did excel at everything you list, yet still struggled. Certain drugs would have helped them
Quote: FaceI wasn't even being so specific as saying it was BAT SPEED or POWER or WHATEVER. All I know, and what should be obvious, is that if all the intangibles are equal (intangibles equaling the "Skill and Talent", the hand-eye, the motor skills, etc), which they pretty much are at that level, then the one who has reached the highest physical level will be better at power moves like home run hitting.
Barry Bonds was a goddamn good player. He was a good player when he was 170lbs and at his physical peak. He gained recognition not by getting "better", he did so by getting "bigger". All his intangibles stayed the same, it was his physical stats, the ones whose bars were raised by the use of PEDs, that made him a record breaker.
Pretty simple, indeed
Face: With all due respect you cannot actually believe "the intangibles equaling Skill and Talent" are anywhere near the same for all major league players. If that were true at least 75% of them would be hitting over .300 (that is my inference) rather than 1% or so. There are starters on teams batting less than .200, and the majority of players are hitting less than .250 with less than 15 HRs many of them absolutely ripped and fit. No sport has that kind of physiological or physical similarities regarding "skill and talent." The disparity from top to bottom is huge.
As far as your assumptions regarding Bonds, you or anybody else have no way of knowing what his physical "peak" was or if his "intangibles" were the same. You cannot tell me or anyone else what his bat speed was at age 28 or 42 or for that matter what anybody's bat speed was or is simply because while everybody who is watching any game gets informed of every pitch speed, there is no record of the bat speed of any player on any hit ball during a game.
Your assumptions are strictly guesswork with absolutely no science to back it up. Which goes back to the original questions:
How much "strength" (muscles mass) does it take to hit a 90mph fastball 400 feet?
How does one measure that "strength" in terms everyone can understand?
tuttigym
PS boymimbo is really wrong about the slowest pitch hit for a HR, and I challenge him to produce the totality of statistics of HRs hit so far this season and the accompanying pitch speed.
Quote: Zcore13tuttigym,
You're missing the point that if two people with the same basic build and some workout regiment and same work ethic and same basic recovery system do all the same stuff, except for one of them takes HGH and the other doesn't, one will become stronger than the other. And if they both started with the same skills, the player taking the HGH will end up hitting the ball harder and farther and/or throwing the ball harder.
I'm not sure why you aren't seeing this???
ZCore13
ZCore13: I note that your background is in insurance and not biochemistry, physiology, kinesiology, or body mechanics. I point this out because your statement above is absolutely false and there is no science to back it up. While two people (athletes) might have similar builds or body types and the same work ethic, their physiology's and body chemistry's will always be different and therefore their physiological maximums for any given set of skills, size, and strength will be different.
Show us all the science from which you are pronouncing these conclusions.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymFace: With all due respect you cannot actually believe "the intangibles equaling Skill and Talent" are anywhere near the same for all major league players.
I do. I might be off mark, but it seems you're looking only at all pro ball players, a "micro" view. Yes, within that .0001% of the population that are pro ball players, the "intangibles" vary greatly. Ozzie Smith and Ted Williams and Mark McGuire have nothing in common, and their skills and accomplishments can't hold a candle to each other. However, when looking at all of the population, the "macro" view, the "intangibles" don't differ that much from each other. They're all guys who can throw 150' on a rope, can track and hit any thrown ball into play, and can read a ball coming at them and get into position to intercept it. "Micro" view, no. "Macro" view, absolutely.
Quote: tuttigymAs far as your assumptions regarding Bonds, you or anybody else have no way of knowing what his physical "peak" was or if his "intangibles" were the same. You cannot tell me or anyone else what his bat speed was at age 28 or 42 or for that matter what anybody's bat speed was or is simply because while everybody who is watching any game gets informed of every pitch speed, there is no record of the bat speed of any player on any hit ball during a game.
I sure can't. But when you see 170lb Barry, whose spent his whole life acquiring and maintaining his peak performance, all of the sudden gain 70lbs and start jacking balls deep, and has been proven to use PEDs,... to quote boymimbo - "Pretty simple actually."
Quote: tuttigymYour assumptions are strictly guesswork with absolutely no science to back it up.
Well, at least we agree on something =)
Quote: onenickelmiracleThe best performance enhancement would be better eyesight to hit a baseball, but not really available. The best hitters can see the ball better than the rest.
Dan Uggla just had Lasik surgery. His vision went from 20/30 to 20/15. That is a pretty significant improvement. He is still striking out, so while he might be able to see the ball better, his reaction time and kinesthetic sense has not measurably improved at the same level yet.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymFace: With all due respect you cannot actually believe "the intangibles equaling Skill and Talent" are anywhere near the same for all major league players. If that were true at least 75% of them would be hitting over .300 (that is my inference) rather than 1% or so. There are starters on teams batting less than .200, and the majority of players are hitting less than .250 with less than 15 HRs many of them absolutely ripped and fit. No sport has that kind of physiological or physical similarities regarding "skill and talent." The disparity from top to bottom is huge.
As far as your assumptions regarding Bonds, you or anybody else have no way of knowing what his physical "peak" was or if his "intangibles" were the same. You cannot tell me or anyone else what his bat speed was at age 28 or 42 or for that matter what anybody's bat speed was or is simply because while everybody who is watching any game gets informed of every pitch speed, there is no record of the bat speed of any player on any hit ball during a game.
Your assumptions are strictly guesswork with absolutely no science to back it up. Which goes back to the original questions:
How much "strength" (muscles mass) does it take to hit a 90mph fastball 400 feet?
How does one measure that "strength" in terms everyone can understand?
tuttigym
PS boymimbo is really wrong about the slowest pitch hit for a HR, and I challenge him to produce the totality of statistics of HRs hit so far this season and the accompanying pitch speed.
tuttigym,
Your lack of knowledge and insight is really starting to show now. It has almost become pointless for anyone to discuss this with you.
You just refuse to understand that EVERY player in MLB has superior skills than the average person. Along with that, each one of them has a potential they can achieve. That maximum potential covers every aspect, running speed, bat speed, arm speed, endurance, fatigue and injury recovery and many other things. PED's unfairly raise the maximum potential to something higher than is not attainable by anyone not on them. That's why Lance Armstrong did what he did. That's why Jose Conseco did what he did. That's why they all do it. It's a competitive advantage that raises the limits of what is normal.
My guess is you've never played any sports past grade school. I've played (up to college), known dozens and dozens of players and umpired (A, AA and AAA Spring Training games). There is a 100% certainty that PED's work. They do help you with recovery. They do help with strength, which in turn increases bat speed, which in tun help the ball travel farther. I've been on teams with people using them. They do make a difference. For you to argue any other way is ridiculous.
ZCore13
Quote: FaceI do. I might be off mark, but it seems you're looking only at all pro ball players, a "micro" view. Yes, within that .0001% of the population that are pro ball players, the "intangibles" vary greatly. Ozzie Smith and Ted Williams and Mark McGuire have nothing in common, and their skills and accomplishments can't hold a candle to each other.
Quote: tuttigymComparing these guys along with Bonds to the rest of the MLB athletes shows a huge disparity but one can make a case for a commonality of talent, skill, and work ethic.
Quote: FaceHowever, when looking at all of the population, the "macro" view, the "intangibles" don't differ that much from each other. They're all guys who can throw 150' on a rope, can track and hit any thrown ball into play, and can read a ball coming at them and get into position to intercept it. "Micro" view, no. "Macro" view, absolutely.
Quote: tuttigymSorry Face again just not even close.
Quote: FaceI sure can't. But when you see 170lb Barry, whose spent his whole life acquiring and maintaining his peak performance, all of the sudden gain 70lbs and start jacking balls deep, and has been proven to use PEDs,... to quote boymimbo - "Pretty simple actually."
Well, at least we agree on something =)
Quote: tuttigymI don't think Bonds "started jacking balls deep" when he gained the 70 lbs. I don't believe his 760+ HRs happened during the last three years of his career, did it?
tuttigym
Quote: Zcore13tuttigym,
Your lack of knowledge and insight is really starting to show now. It has almost become pointless for anyone to discuss this with you.
You just refuse to understand that EVERY player in MLB has superior skills than the average person. Along with that, each one of them has a potential they can achieve. That maximum potential covers every aspect, running speed, bat speed, arm speed, endurance, fatigue and injury recovery and many other things. PED's unfairly raise the maximum potential to something higher than is not attainable by anyone not on them. That's why Lance Armstrong did what he did. That's why Jose Conseco did what he did. That's why they all do it. It's a competitive advantage that raises the limits of what is normal.
My guess is you've never played any sports past grade school. I've played (up to college), known dozens and dozens of players and umpired (A, AA and AAA Spring Training games). There is a 100% certainty that PED's work. They do help you with recovery. They do help with strength, which in turn increases bat speed, which in tun help the ball travel farther. I've been on teams with people using them. They do make a difference. For you to argue any other way is ridiculous.
ZCore13
Your guessing on all counts is wrong along with your "100% certainty." Unless you can produce any science that directly links PEDs to hitting HRs and can answer the two questions that are the basis for this thread, your "knowledge" and "experiences" are less than anecdotal.
As far as Armstrong, he blood doped, i.e., increased the RBC's to eliminate fatigue which is truly cheating. Conseco, Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest were scammed, conned out of thousands of $$$ trying to get that edge. Just like the really smart investors reaping unreal returns from the money sharks and con men.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymI don't think Bonds "started jacking balls deep" when he gained the 70 lbs. I don't believe his 760+ HRs happened during the last three years of his career, did it?
Bonds was hurt the last three years of his career. You knew that, right?
Bonds hit one home run every 4.33 games between 1986 and 2000, when he was under his listed retirement weight of 228. Between 2001 and 2004, the four years when he was heaviest but before he got hurt, he hit one home run every 2.74 games. One might say "you do the math," but I just did.
There is a positive correlation of 23.5% between Bonds' annual HR output and his weight over the entirety of his career. If you drop the last three years when he was hurt, and drop the first three years to be fair, that positive correlation increases to 65.1%.
Bonds started taking steroids in 2000. In that year, and until he got hurt, his annual HR totals were 49, 73, 46, 45, and 45, an average of 51.6. His average annual HR total prior to that was less than 32. Moreover, Bonds' batting average in those 5 years was approximately .340, while his batting average prior to using steroids was .289, over 50 points less.
I don't believe there is anyone in baseball who denies that the steroids were entirely responsible for this dramatic increase in performance, including Barry Bonds.
Do you even know what PED's are? Let me help you out. They are drugs that target specific things in your body and increase their normal capacity. Stop looking to science and start looking at the medical profession if you want the truth.
As an examply, do you know what Ribose is?? Another lesson for you. Ribose is a building block in the human body for the synthesis of nucleotides. Nucleotides are the building blocks that form DNA. I'm sure you've heard of DNA before? If you have more Ribose in your system, your system produces more energy, or ATP (Adenosine triphosphate), for your cells. More energy in your cells produces better recovery and better growth to your muscles. At normal levels in your body, it produces normal recovery and growth. At abnormal levels it produces abnormal recovery and growth. This is why, and it has been medically proven, Ribose is given to people with Coronary Heart Disease.
So no, a scientist hasn't done tests to specifically see if Ribose helps an athlete recover, but medically it has been proven that Ribose is what helps humans recover. Last I checked, athletes are human. Do some research on each individual PED and their effects medically. There is a reason why athletes are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to be able to get these drugs. It's not a scam, no matter how much you want to dig your head in the sand.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13PED's unfairly raise the maximum potential to something higher than is not attainable by anyone not on them. That's why Lance Armstrong did what he did. That's why Jose Conseco did what he did. That's why they all do it. It's a competitive advantage that raises the limits of what is normal.
I must ask why that's unfair. If PEDs are available to everyone, it should be the individual's decision whether to use them of not. Some players need that extra push to stay competitive, and they're willing to risk the many physical downsides just to have the advantages now. Why does no one complain about PEDs in boxing? Or football? Why are PEDs in baseball such a big deal?
Quote: onenickelmiracleThe best performance enhancement would be better eyesight to hit a baseball, but not really available. The best hitters can see the ball better than the rest.
Some players wear glasses to see better, or get Lasik. Why is this not cheating then? Isn't that giving yourself an advantage other players choose not to go through?
OTOH, how great would Ichiro be if he used PEDs? Oh man! Some players think they need those steroids just to get to little Ichiro's level of play.
Quote: zippyboyQuote: Zcore13PED's unfairly raise the maximum potential to something higher than is not attainable by anyone not on them. That's why Lance Armstrong did what he did. That's why Jose Conseco did what he did. That's why they all do it. It's a competitive advantage that raises the limits of what is normal.
I must ask why that's unfair. If PEDs are available to everyone, it should be the individual's decision whether to use them of not. Some players need that extra push to stay competitive, and they're willing to risk the many physical downsides just to have the advantages now. Why does no one complain about PEDs in boxing? Or football? Why are PEDs in baseball such a big deal?
Some players wear glasses to see better, or get Lasik. Why is this not cheating then? Isn't that giving yourself an advantage other players choose not to go through?
OTOH, how great would Ichiro be if he used PEDs? Oh man! Some players think they need those steroids just to get to little Ichiro's level of play.
they are not available to everyone. That is the problem. They are illegal. if they were legal we wouldn't even be talking about all of this.
ZCore13
Because if this guy isn't trolling, there's no way you're going to help him anyways.
Edit: Above is about the OP, the argument of whether or not PED's should be allowed is a reasonable one. I err on the side of keeping them banned.
Quote: zippyboyMy argument is that they shouldn't be illegal at all. Any more than vitamins, surgery, eyeglasses or a 6-day workout regimen. You do whatcha gotta do to get ahead. Only the weaker players are crying that it's unfair.
I have no problem if they are legal, other than it ruins the long history, at least in baseball, of the game being played almost exactly the same so stats can be fairly compared. Its historical stats and records that are the victims.
You are wrong that it is the weak that are complaining. It is the law abiding players. I chose not to use steroids (HGH and other LED's weren't around yet). I was at a disadvantage and I knew it. My basic skill and natural talent was better than some that were better than me because they hit home runs. I was not weak. I was honest.
ZCore13
Quote: zippyboyMy argument is that they shouldn't be illegal at all. Any more than vitamins, surgery, eyeglasses or a 6-day workout regimen. You do whatcha gotta do to get ahead. Only the weaker players are crying that it's unfair.
It's not even a question of fairness, it's a question of changing the game. You could move in the fences 100 feet and give everyone corked bats -- that'd be fair too, but it wouldn't be the same game as last year.
The rules say PEDs are cheating, so they are. Arguing that PEDs should be allowed is no different than arguing for any other rule change. The question is whether the rule change would be a good one. There are lots of reasons why PEDs should not be allowed in MLB, but I can't think of a compelling reason to allow them. What's yours?
Quote: MathExtremistQuote: zippyboyMy argument is that they shouldn't be illegal at all. Any more than vitamins, surgery, eyeglasses or a 6-day workout regimen. You do whatcha gotta do to get ahead. Only the weaker players are crying that it's unfair.
It's not even a question of fairness, it's a question of changing the game. You could move in the fences 100 feet and give everyone corked bats -- that'd be fair too, but it wouldn't be the same game as last year.
The rules say PEDs are cheating, so they are. Arguing that PEDs should be allowed is no different than arguing for any other rule change. The question is whether the rule change would be a good one. There are lots of reasons why PEDs should not be allowed in MLB, but I can't think of a compelling reason to allow them. What's yours?
Times change. Sports change. Why are those oversize graphite racquets not cheating in tennis these days? They certainly didn't have them in Arthur Ashe's time, yet we still compare players in the "modern era" of Grand Slam events.
Do you not think Schwarzenegger was juicing to get that body? Shouldn't we put an asterisk next to all his Mr. Olympia trophies?
I question all the attention on baseball and PEDs. Why not boxing, football, body building, etc? Is it only due to the history of the game? Then why aren't all baseball stadiums built the same? Were people 100 years ago complaining that Fenway's Green Monster was unfair to the home team? I just don't get the hypocrisy.
Quote: zippyboyI question all the attention on baseball and PEDs. Why not boxing, football, body building, etc? Is it only due to the history of the game? Then why aren't all baseball stadiums built the same? Were people 100 years ago complaining that Fenwick's Green Monster was unfair to the home team? I just don't get the hypocrisy.
I don't get the hypocrisy either. Fenwick?
Times change. People should adapt. People aren't whining that new racecars have more horsepower and thus are unfair, are they?
ZCore13
Quote: tuttigymYou cannot tell me or anyone else what his bat speed was at age 28 or 42 or for that matter what anybody's bat speed was or is simply because while everybody who is watching any game gets informed of every pitch speed, there is no record of the bat speed of any player on any hit ball during a game
But anyone can tell you what his home run totals were when he wasn't using drugs and when he was, according to both Game of Shadows and MLB drug testing results
Before Bonds started taking drugs, from 1986 through 1998, he hit 411 home runs in 6621 at bats; a home run in 6.2% of all at bats
While Bonds was on drugs, from 1999 through 2004, he hit 292 home runs in 2477 at bats; a home run in 11.8% of all at bats
Further, every year from 1999 through 04, he had a better home run rate than even his best year before his drug use started
After 2004 he was subjected to drug testing, so either stopped using or only used in a way that would produce a false negative
Quote: tuttigymHow much "strength" (muscles mass) does it take to hit a 90mph fastball 400 feet?
How does one measure that "strength" in terms everyone can understand?
The first question has already been answered, you just choose to ignore everything humans have learned about physics
You already agreed this strength is measured in home runs hit. Over the past 20 years, there have been documented drug users who displayed some of the greatest home run strength: Bonds, McGwire, Rodriguez. . .
Quote: tuttigymConseco, Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and the rest were scammed, conned out of thousands of $$$ trying to get that edge. Just like the really smart investors reaping unreal returns from the money sharks and con men.
According to baseballreference, Bonds is fourth in history in career salary (two of the players ahead of him have been suspended for using drugs). Of that $188 million, 71% of that came after he started using drugs, despite accounting for ony 41% of years played. If the drugs offered only a placebo effect, it was an extremely profitable choice. It is virtually impossibly the drug use provided zero benefit, given how much his home run rate changed. It's obvious to everyone that you're the one being scammed for believing these drugs do not provide any benefit
Quote: MathExtremist
The rules say PEDs are cheating, so they are. Arguing that PEDs should be allowed is no different than arguing for any other rule change. The question is whether the rule change would be a good one. There are lots of reasons why PEDs should not be allowed in MLB, but I can't think of a compelling reason to allow them. What's yours?
It is well established that drug prohibition does not stop drug use. Do you really believe that focusing on punishment of users instead of health and safety of them is universally and unconditionally the best way to protect all communities from the harmful effects of drug use and abuse?
Quote: TomGIt is well established that drug prohibition does not stop drug use. Do you really believe that focusing on punishment of users instead of health and safety of them is universally and unconditionally the best way to protect all communities from the harmful effects of drug use and abuse?
For adults the answer is "Absolutely". Adults that take drugs know or can easily find out the ill effects. They are choosing not to know if they don't. They choose to use them to feel better or try to gain an advantage over others. Education will not work for people that don't care because the benefits of using them, in their mind, outweigh the risks.
Kids are a different story. Education is hugely important.
ZCore13
