Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:44:16 PM permalink
Quote: TomG


The first question has already been answered, you just choose to ignore everything humans have learned about physics....




That is his nature, to ignore or reject scientific knowledge in favor of how he feels about the subject.
A falling knife has no handle.
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:44:26 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

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.



But what about the adults that don't choose to ever use them? Aren't we sometimes hurt by living in communities where drug dealing and prisons are such highly profitably businesses?

That may seen off course when talking about drugs in baseball, but it really has a lot of similarities. Fighting a war on weed, cocaine, heroin and crystal meth does not eliminate them. The barriers the war on drugs creates can reduce use, but it also reduced competition among suppliers, making it far more profitable for them. Profits are so high, there is a very strong willingness to protect any interests with violence -- something that hurts everyone no matter what choices we make about our own use

Likewise, barriers from banning drugs in baseball makes it far more profitable for those who do use. Notice that most of the players documented as drug users never failed tests, so there is little chance of suspension. Alex Rodriguez was only caught by the media. Same with Bonds; Clemends was named in the Mitchell Report. How much money did those players make the years they were using drugs?
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 11:15:41 AM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

Quote: zippyboy

My 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.


ZCore13



You seem to have a real lapse in memory. When Bonds, Sosa, et. al. were playing and hitting HRs, there was NO testing and PEDs were NOT illegal, therefore, by definition, they were not cheating. The Players Assn. saw to that until public pressure and the quacking media with their junk science screamed for change.

I have no problem with the rules as they are now simply because it is a known fact that certain PED's have been shown to be detrimental to some user's health and well being. They can shorten one's life and mess up body chemistry.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

tuttigym
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3819
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
September 3rd, 2013 at 11:24:21 AM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: zippyboy

My 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.


ZCore13



You seem to have a real lapse in memory. When Bonds, Sosa, et. al. were playing and hitting HRs, there was NO testing and PEDs were NOT illegal, therefore, by definition, they were not cheating. The Players Assn. saw to that until public pressure and the quacking media with their junk science screamed for change.

I have no problem with the rules as they are now simply because it is a known fact that certain PED's have been shown to be detrimental to some user's health and well being. They can shorten one's life and mess up body chemistry.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

tuttigym



It's obvious you don't even know the definition of hypocrisy. Steroids, HGH and most of the other items that were taken are against the law to posses/take. They are illegal drugs in the United States. Illegal drug use is against the rules in baseball.

Baseball did not have testing for them, but baseball also does not test for assault or burglary. Those are against the law as well and will get you a suspension, or worse in baseball.

Your argument is totally without merit, your facts don't exist and your posts are just making you look worse each time you attempt to recover from the previous laughable one.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:10:36 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

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.



Again, there is NO science to back up the claim that weight training increases the type of "strength" that might elevate bat speed, and Face cannot know what anyone's bat speed is or was during any given time period or career including his own. As regards using "a heavier bat to generate (more) home runs," that statement is beyond incorrect. www.baseball-reference.com under the category: Equipment Rules states: "Players have gradually adopted lighter bats on the THEORY (emph.) that bat speed rather than weight is the key to hitting the ball hard. ....... The bats used by Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds to break the single season home run record weigh almost a THIRD LESS than those used by Babe Ruth when he set the same record."

Baseball-reference adds: Players changed from bats constructed of ash to maple wood. "Maple is suppose to be more durable than ash, and players BELIEVE (emph) that it is harder and thus able to hit the ball further. The fact that Barry Bonds was among the first players to use a maple bat contributed to their popularity in the early 2000's."

Pretty simple really when one checks the facts from a RELIABLE reference.

tuttigym
Buzzard
Buzzard
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:30:12 PM permalink
Quote: Mosca

I think there's something more to the PEDs, and that is that for players to stay competitive with users, they have to use themselves. A player shouldn't have to risk his health beyond what is expected of the sport in order to be on a fair field. At least when you play at Fenway, the dimensions are the same for both teams. We're seeing it right now, with current players turning against users because they don't want to jack themselves.



Believe it or not, I was young once. And too many young men live and die by their ability to compete in sports. Steroid use is far too tempting to young men who will risk today and to hell with tomorrow !
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:30:37 PM permalink
Quote: Face



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."



Face, you too, are factually challenged regarding BB's weight.

1986-1990 BB's listed weight was 185
1991-1996 BB's listed weight was 190
1997-1998 BB's listed weight was 206
1999-2000 BB's listed weight was 210
2001-2007 BB's listed weight was 228

He was never 170 lbs or 240 lbs.

Furthermore, you or anyone else, to my knowledge, cannot breakdown his body fat content during those years.

The reference material quoted is from a site called the Evolution of Barry Bonds.

The only thing that is "pretty simple" is your inability to relay the straight scoop.

tuttigym
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:54:31 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13



It's obvious you don't even know the definition of hypocrisy. Steroids, HGH and most of the other items that were taken are against the law to posses/take. They are illegal drugs in the United States. Illegal drug use is against the rules in baseball.

Baseball did not have testing for them, but baseball also does not test for assault or burglary. Those are against the law as well and will get you a suspension, or worse in baseball.

Your argument is totally without merit, your facts don't exist and your posts are just making you look worse each time you attempt to recover from the previous laughable one.

ZCore13



The listed PED's above are NOT controlled substances and may be used via prescription. Clandestine possession and use are NOT against the law because if that were the case those testing positive would be prosecuted and penalized by the law as well as by MLB. To my knowledge, current perpetrators who are users are penalized by MLB only. Those who are dispensing the chemicals w/o prescriptions or proper licencing are committing the felonies.

Your analogy above does not need baseball "testing." Those folks are prosecuted and summarily punished for those illegal acts a la Aaron Hernandez or Denny McClain or Otis Nixon, etc. No amount of foolish rhetoric can hide the folley of your posts.

tuttigym
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:59:04 PM permalink
Quote: Beardgoat

Tuttigym's next topic... Water doesn't get you wet



Everybody knows H2O gets one wet not water. Water is a PED which allows one to go beyond their basic physical limitations and perform at an enhanced level.

tuttigym
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3819
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:02:01 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

The listed PED's above are NOT controlled substances and may be used via prescription. Clandestine possession and use are NOT against the law because if that were the case those testing positive would be prosecuted and penalized by the law as well as by MLB. To my knowledge, current perpetrators who are users are penalized by MLB only. Those who are dispensing the chemicals w/o prescriptions or proper licencing are committing the felonies.

Your analogy above does not need baseball "testing." Those folks are prosecuted and summarily punished for those illegal acts a la Aaron Hernandez or Denny McClain or Otis Nixon, etc. No amount of foolish rhetoric can hide the folley of your posts.

tuttigym



Wow you amaze me more and more each post. In the U.S., anabolic steroids are currently listed as Schedule III controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, which makes simply possessing such substances without a prescription, first offense, a federal crime punishable by up to one year in prison.

How are you going to twist this mistake on your part? Nevermind... You are not longer worth discussing this with. This is my last post on the subject.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:07:24 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Face, you too, are factually challenged regarding BB's weight.

1986-1990 BB's listed weight was 185
1991-1996 BB's listed weight was 190
1997-1998 BB's listed weight was 206
1999-2000 BB's listed weight was 210
2001-2007 BB's listed weight was 228

He was never 170 lbs or 240 lbs.

Furthermore, you or anyone else, to my knowledge, cannot breakdown his body fat content during those years.

The reference material quoted is from a site called the Evolution of Barry Bonds.

The only thing that is "pretty simple" is your inability to relay the straight scoop.

tuttigym



Was it this exchange that gave it away?...

Quote: tuttigym

Your assumptions are strictly guesswork with absolutely no science to back it up.



Quote: Face

Well, at least we agree on something =)



Yes, I admit it. The weights I supplied were part guess work, part exageration. I'm the last person here who should be talking baseball, as I find it... let's just say "unappealing".

Bonds was little. Then he got big. More balls went deep when he was big. He got big by PEDs. Therefore...

Why so serious? =)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:18:31 PM permalink
Quote: Beardgoat

In 1990 when bonds won his first MVP and including the 4 years through 1994 he was hitting a home run every 13.8 at bats. He won 3 mvp in this time period and was one of the best hitters of his era.... In 2000 - 2004 when it was fairly obvious he was cheating, he was hitting home runs every 8.2 at bats. That is substantially higher.



You need to tell the REST OF THE STORY.

BB's Plate Appearances vs AB

2000: 607 vs 480
2001: 664 vs 476
2002: 612 vs 403
2003: 550 vs 390
2004: 617 vs 373
2005 did not play much
2006: 493 vs 367
2007: 477 vs 340

As you well know, he was so feared as a hitter; he was walked. The stats are therefore a bit skewed and only conjecture might be used to determine the real HR/AB's.

tuttigym
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:35:27 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Again, there is NO science to back up the claim that weight training increases the type of "strength" that might elevate bat speed,



Just because you are too lazy to find it, does not mean it doesn't exist. Typing "Steroid effect on bat speed" into a google search took me about 20 seconds to find scientific literature explaining exactly how much steroids can effect muscle power, bat speed, distance on batted balls, and home run totals.

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v76/i1/p15_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/BRJ-Steroids-v3.pdf

Further, we can also use media reports, The Mitchell Report and other sources to identify when players started their drug regimen, then compare home run totals to before and after. Do you refuse to do that because you are too lazy or because you only want to be annoying and don't care to offer anything insightful or meaningful?
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:40:22 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

As you well know, he was so feared as a hitter; he was walked. The stats are therefore a bit skewed and only conjecture might be used to determine the real HR/AB's.



What the hell are you talking about? Walks are good things for the offensive team. If Bonds had higher walk totals in the years he was using drugs, that is even more proof he was doing good things for his team when he was on drugs.

In absolutely no way is that conjecture
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:22:35 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Just because you are too lazy to find it, does not mean it doesn't exist. Typing "Steroid effect on bat speed" into a google search took me about 20 seconds to find scientific literature explaining exactly how much steroids can effect muscle power, bat speed, distance on batted balls, and home run totals.

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v76/i1/p15_s1?isAuthorized=no

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/BRJ-Steroids-v3.pdf

Further, we can also use media reports, The Mitchell Report and other sources to identify when players started their drug regimen, then compare home run totals to before and after. Do you refuse to do that because you are too lazy or because you only want to be annoying and don't care to offer anything insightful or meaningful?



Actually TomG I am currently trying to have a dialogue with Dr. Alan M. Nathan regarding Tobins "research" and Nathan's "affirmation" paper. If you have read both "studies," with an open and questioning mind, you should be able to ferret out some major flaws. The biggest flaw is simply the giant leap of faith linking steroids to hitting HRs.

Tobin's "study" shows none of that. It only points out that a 10% increase in "muscle mass" MIGHT lead to a 50% increase in bat speed. Another major flaw is that Tobin is convinced that ONLY "muscle mass" can increase bat speed.

I wrote to Dr. Nathan stating that since Tobin was sure HRs are "strength" related that either he or Tobin had the absolute obligation to answer the two questions posed at the top of this thread. To date, he has not provided those answers.

Please note that the authors of these studies use the vaguest of terminology in their presentations, i.e., "Possible Effect." There is no science only speculation and guesswork.

You might find this interesting. In Nathan's paper, he estimates that a batter with a bat speed of just 70 mph hitting an 85 mph fastball at an angle of 30-35 degrees will hit the ball "close to 400 ft." I believe most ML pitchers throw a great deal faster than that and the vast majority of players have a bat speed in excess of 70 mph. If Nathan is correct, then ANY player should be able to hit at least 40 or more HR's in a season, because according to both Tobin and Nathan, "muscle mass" is the ONLY ingredient necessary for HR production.

tuttigym
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:50:14 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

Actually TomG I am currently trying to have a dialogue with Dr. Alan M. Nathan regarding Tobins "research" and Nathan's "affirmation" paper. If you have read both "studies," with an open and questioning mind, you should be able to ferret out some major flaws. The biggest flaw is simply the giant leap of faith linking steroids to hitting HRs.

Tobin's "study" shows none of that. It only points out that a 10% increase in "muscle mass" MIGHT lead to a 50% increase in bat speed. Another major flaw is that Tobin is convinced that ONLY "muscle mass" can increase bat speed.



I must ask again, what the hell are you talking about?

1) it is an academic paper, not a study

2) the paper says things far different than you think it does. The claim is that a 5% increase in bat speed can lead to 50% more home runs -- eg 35 meters per second to 36.75 meters per second will add enough distance to the median fly ball to increase home runs per year from 20 to 30

The author of the paper explains very clearly that the changes in muscle power and bat speed are caused by steroids are only rough estimates. The information from players who have actually picked up a bat fully supports that that the estimate is completely accurate

The physics has been peer reviewed and I can't find anyone who disagrees with either the method or the results (except, perhaps, you, who is disagreeing with things the author never wrote "50% increase in bat speed")
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 5:48:54 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

I must ask again, what the hell are you talking about?

1) it is an academic paper, not a study

2) the paper says things far different than you think it does. The claim is that a 5% increase in bat speed can lead to 50% more home runs -- eg 35 meters per second to 36.75 meters per second will add enough distance to the median fly ball to increase home runs per year from 20 to 30

The author of the paper explains very clearly that the changes in muscle power and bat speed are caused by steroids are only rough estimates. The information from players who have actually picked up a bat fully supports that that the estimate is completely accurate

The physics has been peer reviewed and I can't find anyone who disagrees with either the method or the results (except, perhaps, you, who is disagreeing with things the author never wrote "50% increase in bat speed")



It is a "paper" or "study" that is suppose to be science to "prove" that steroids are a direct casual link to increased bat speed through increased "strength." The "study" provides a hypothesis and then goes to prove the hypothesis with a "logical" progression of "proofs." In my correspondence to Nathan, he does NOT dispute my inferences. Therefore, somehow, it seems, that you and others consider it science and proof positive that steroids can create more "strength" or muscle mass to develop more bat speed. The study infers that the ONLY ingredient for bat speed is muscle mass. When Nathan was asked exactly that, he did not deny my interpretation, and brother, he is absolutely wrong.

There is no denying that increased bat speed for whatever percentage could lead to more home runs, but at the same time, the faster the pitch, the lower bat speed is required to propel the sphere the same distance. That is why Nathan came up with his calculations above to which he admitted the same.

tuttigym
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
September 3rd, 2013 at 6:12:11 PM permalink
In February 2010 tuttigym started an argument that the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets was a hoax.., not that it was wrong, but that it was a hoax.

That topic has lasted until July of this year, and has gone FIFTY ONE PAGES. Not arguing the effects of PEDs, but arguing that arithmetic is a hoax.

Why anyone would think that this topic would be any different is beyond me.
A falling knife has no handle.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 3rd, 2013 at 9:43:42 PM permalink
Sigh, as usual.

Of course, anabolic steroids increase muscle strength by encouraging new muscle growth. Essentially, taking anabolic steroid increases the production of proteins and they also block the effects of cortisol which breaks down muscle. It allows you to keep muscle mass longer and enables the proteins to build more muscle mass at an accelerated rate. What does this mean? Less workout time, more muscle mass. And there are plenty of medical research that shows this. Given the use by athletes and weightlifters in the Olympics before they became illegal to use in competition, its effects are obvious.

Now, does increased muscle mass result in increased bat speed? Of course it does. While bat mass has a minor effect on distance, it is primarily the speed of the bat and the smooth transfer of momentum from the ball to the bat that causes home runs to be hit. Each mph in bat speed increases the potential distance of a ball by 8 feet.

And muscles = power, obviously. The ability to swing a bat and to transfer your body mass into a forward motion is dependent on strength = power = muscle.

There is a reason why Bonds, McGuire, and A-Rod are not going to the hall of fame -- they used banned substances in order to get a performance enhancement over everyone else and to make millions of dollars.

Of course, baseball players have a degree of talent. Melky Cabrera has talent, not to hit .346 anymore as a San Francisco Giant before his suspension for PED use, but as a .280 hitter (and ZERO power in a HR friendly park) for the Blue Jays with a bum leg, AAAA caliber at best. There's a live example of pre-and-post PED use. And of course, each person will have different results.

It would be very difficult to produce and create a controlled study based on human participants to see how far each person could hit based on steroid, but the lack of existence of such a study does not make it a hoax.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
September 3rd, 2013 at 10:27:39 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

In my correspondence to Nathan, he does NOT dispute my inferences ... When Nathan was asked exactly that, he did not deny my interpretation, and brother, he is absolutely wrong.



Of course there was no dispute, nor denial. He realized right away you were asking stupid questions and chose not to engage in any discussion about this foolishness. He's a lot smarter than I am
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 4th, 2013 at 4:09:40 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

Of course there was no dispute, nor denial. He realized right away you were asking stupid questions and chose not to engage in any discussion about this foolishness. He's a lot smarter than I am



The conversations are not over. I find it interesting that you have pointed to these two "research" papers as some kind of proof of the causal direct link and then down play these "studies" and the work involved by these two physicists as just "papers." You need to re-evaluate your critical thinking skills.

1. A 10% increase in "muscle mass" is NOT isolated in a general weight training programs, and Bonds was no exception. His development was easily visable in general for all to perceive. Therefore, that "10%" would have been diluted to perhaps 1% or less in the viable areas directly related to hitting. For example: The bicep is a flexor and has little to do with creating bat speed. Yet Bonds biceps were highly developed along with his quads, obliques, and other irrelevant (my words) muscles relating to bat speed. So where does the 10% have to be located to effect the change? What I am stating here is that the 10% increased mm would have to be necessarily be in hitting specific areas.

2. It is highly likely that there are many MLB players who can clock bat speed at 80 mph or higher. Why is it that they are not hitting big numbers of HRs or even batting averages equal to BB?

3. With all the controversy, where are the studies or research involving bat speed and weight training w/o using chemicals?

4. There are MLB players that are "bigger and (arguably) stronger" (BB was 6' 1" and between 210 - 228) currently playing that are not putting up nearly the numbers of Bonds. Why?

5. When will MLB start clocking bat speed as is done by the PGA? The technology is certainly available. (I do not expect an answer to this as there is no one here that can read the minds of the MLB powers that could effect the use of such instrumentation.)

tuttigym
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 4th, 2013 at 5:21:57 AM permalink
1. Most bat speed is generated by the whole body. Strong abdominals allow you to twist your body and generate the extra rotational velocity to increase bat speed. Leg strength is part of it too and allows you to transfer energy from back to front. Steroids increase muscle mass all over and produce an unfair advantage because it allows you to spend less time on working out and allows you to stay stronger longer. Barry Bonds was skilled too.

2. MLB players bat speed range between 65 - 85mph. Trajectory is key to hitting home runs in that the ball must be hit up.

3. Which MLB players will participate in such a study?

4. They're not taking PEDs.

5. Bat speed is quite measurable in golf because the ball is stationary as is the golfer. Not so in baseball. It's easy to measure bat speed off of a tee.

Name a hitter who was convicted of PED use and got better after they stopped using them?
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 4th, 2013 at 11:56:54 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

1. Most bat speed is generated by the whole body. Strong abdominals allow you to twist your body and generate the extra rotational velocity to increase bat speed. Leg strength is part of it too and allows you to transfer energy from back to front. Steroids increase muscle mass all over and produce an unfair advantage because it allows you to spend less time on working out and allows you to stay stronger longer. Barry Bonds was skilled too.

2. MLB players bat speed range between 65 - 85mph. Trajectory is key to hitting home runs in that the ball must be hit up.

3. Which MLB players will participate in such a study?

4. They're not taking PEDs.

5. Bat speed is quite measurable in golf because the ball is stationary as is the golfer. Not so in baseball. It's easy to measure bat speed off of a tee.

Name a hitter who was convicted of PED use and got better after they stopped using them?



You know BM you are an encyclopedia of mis-information. First, with bat speed and HRs where the pitches are at least 88 mph which is factually incorrect and untrue. Second, MLB players "bat speed range between 65-85 mph." If that info is available, give us a link or a viable reference site as your number 5 above quite clearly states that bat speed in baseball is not measurable when hitting a moving object like a baseball. Third, a research effort to determine bat speed and muscle mass w/o PED's would be welcome, easy, and doable. If you had any background in sports medicine or research, you could figure it out. Fourth, they are currently measuring ball exit speed off the bat at selected games, so measuring bat speed at impact is also technologically possible.

Perhaps you could name all the baseball players in the majors and minors who used PED's who did not get better or who did not make it to the big show at all.

BTW, if you google HGH and read from the Mayo Clinic web site, it specifically states that HGH can increase muscle mass but "the increase in muscle DOESN'T translate into increased strength."

Can you tell me how it is possible for Jack Nicklaus to win the Masters at age 46 or better yet how in the world Tom Watson can come within one hole of winning The Open Championship (British Open) at the age of 60+? Those guys must have cheated and been on something, right?

tuttigym
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
September 4th, 2013 at 12:59:51 PM permalink
Who needs science, when we have our thoughts and feelings? Good ol' seat-of-the-pants reckoning is the best way to go, sez I.
A falling knife has no handle.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
September 4th, 2013 at 1:47:24 PM permalink
Sure, i'm the encyclopedia of misinformation. You're the one making the claims, not me.

A research effort to relate bat speed and muscle mass is useless because of all of the other variables. Bat speed varies based on a number of other factors, including player movement, so any practice on bat speed will just increase it without increasing muscle mass. Researchers know that they can't create a study to isolate muscle mass from all of the other factors involved in hitting a ball.

Bat speed IS measured off a tee, but it is not really possible to measure bat speed in game with a moving baseball, a moving player, and a moving bat. Read my second statement. It is easy to measure bat speed off a tee, and it's been measured.

Hittracker has all of the speed off bats for all home runs and for this year, they range from 88.1 (312 foot home run) to 120.1mph (475 feet). The COR of a baseball ranges from .55 in perfect conditions to .48 at 100% humidity (http://www.laserpablo.com/baseball/Kagan/CORandHumidors.pdf). If you threw a baseball at a wooden wall, the return speed of the baseball would be 55% of the speed of the ball at 0% humidity and 48% at 100% humidity. Coors Field humidifies their balls to keep them from sailing out of the park. And, it has been shown that the faster the baseball hits the target, the lower the COR (by about 5 points again), and the properties of the bat itself lower the COR down to about .38 (http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/ProgressPerformanceBats.pdf).

So, you can deduce bat speed. We know the speed off the bat and these are all available for every home run using ESPN's hittracker. If a fastball is coming in at 92mph the ball is 84mph by the time it hits the bat. With a COR of about .38 your return ball speed is about 32mph on a stationary bat presuming full contact. Add the bat speed to this and you can see that the fastest bat speed is about 88mph while the slowest is about 60mph (therefore my 65 - 85mph estimate). (http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/batw8.html).

PEDs don't guarantee success. They aid it. Barry Bonds, Melky Cabrera, A-Rod, McGwire would all be major league players without PEDs. They wouldn't have been as successful because they would not have had the time to build up the muscle mass and keep their strength compared to other athletes.

And yeah, increased muscle mass doesn't translate into increased strength. You have to do the additional piece - working out.

Golf is about accuracy, not distance. Tiger Woods is the number one golfer in the world due to all aspects of the game. John Daly has been long known as the person with the longest drive, but he doesn't win tournaments because the rest of his game stinks.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22296
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
September 4th, 2013 at 5:18:44 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

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.

What if they are identical twins?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 5th, 2013 at 3:21:51 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

What if they are identical twins?



Well to start with, they have different and unique fingerprints.

tuttigym
tuttigym
tuttigym
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 1920
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
September 5th, 2013 at 6:40:42 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



First, I need to apologize to you for the comment concerning "ball speed" exit and HRs. I mis-read that part of one of your early posts believing you wrote PITCH speed. I was wrong. That information you provided was indeed correct.

I also know that you sincerely believe that PEDs give some type of advantage to users. That is where we have our real disagreement.

I will comment on parts of your previous post later.

tuttigym
  • Jump to: