Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3689
August 30th, 2013 at 3:14:39 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.



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
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
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 615
August 30th, 2013 at 3:33:44 PM permalink
Quote: Face

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.



Quote: tuttigym

Comparing 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: Face

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: tuttigym

Sorry Face again just not even close.



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."

Well, at least we agree on something =)



Quote: tuttigym

I 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

tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 615
August 30th, 2013 at 3:48:45 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

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



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
Beardgoat
Beardgoat
Joined: Apr 2, 2012
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 876
August 30th, 2013 at 3:59:32 PM permalink
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.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 30th, 2013 at 4:17:57 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

I 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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3689
August 30th, 2013 at 4:19:41 PM permalink
You are not smart. Lance Armstrong used PED's along with blood doping. He avoided detection by one, paying a lot of money to have PED's developed that there was no test for yet, and two withdrawing from races where he was tipped off random testing was about to take place. These facts are all in the 1,000 pages of evidence the USADA gathered when investigating PED's in cycling and Lance Armstrong.

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
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.
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1124
August 30th, 2013 at 5:05:16 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

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.


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: onenickelmiracle

The 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.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
Zcore13
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 3689
August 30th, 2013 at 5:08:32 PM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

Quote: Zcore13

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.


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
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.
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1124
August 30th, 2013 at 5:14:06 PM permalink
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.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
ahiromu
ahiromu
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2102
August 30th, 2013 at 5:17:36 PM permalink


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.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"

  • Jump to: