Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, the fact that you tried to hijack this thread to discuss your outrage at any implication that steroids are bad (even taking pains to debunk statistics that you brought up YOURSELF) says to me that steroids are very important to you, which in turn makes my question an entirely rhetorical one. Your answer is not required.
You are right, and I knew it from the before I even started this thread. Steroids are important to me - very important. I will say that I do not believe that steroids are nearly as dangerous as drugs like heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy, or even alcohol (at 4+ drinks a day). I've said my part, and although you all have good points, it's hardly enough to make me even consider your word as the pontificate.
The argument that A is OK because B is even worse is so fucking stupid that it does not even merit full deconstruction. Any intelligent person can immediately see what's wrong with it.
Frankly, you've made an idiot out of yourself in this thread. You can't back up any of your points and your idiotic argument about the 3oz bat weight change betrays a fundamental ignorance of even the most elementary principles of physics.
Force = mass times acceleration. If you change the mass of a bat by 10%, compared to packing on so much muscle that you're probably looking at a doubling of strength, what do you think makes the bigger difference? And do you even understand the concept of momentum, which reduces the impact of a lighter bat?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Lazer eye surgery can bring vision to 20/20, and, in some cases, better.
The bolded words are key ones. You have failed to prove that the cases that are relevant (i.e. the ones involving eye surgery to major leaguers) are those "some cases". I don't even know if you're credible at all on this matter. Under what circumstances can vision be made better than 20/20? What is it called then?[/b]
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
And do you even understand the concept of momentum, which reduces the impact of a lighter bat?
Maybe baseball players don't. Why do they use those corked bats anyways?
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Lazer eye surgery can bring vision to 20/20, and, in some cases, better.
The bolded words are key ones. You have failed to prove that the cases that are relevant (i.e. the ones involving eye surgery to major leaguers) are those "some cases". I don't even know if you're credible at all on this matter. Under what circumstances can vision be made better than 20/20? What is it called then?
Better than 20/20? How about 20/16, or 20/8, as examples? (The way it works: someone with 20/x vision can see at 20 feet what a person with 20/20 vision can see at x feet.) Many good hitters have better than 20/20 vision.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
I thought that was far-sightedness. Whatever. At least we know that swing speed has a definite and almost quanitifiable impact on performance, whereas we are unsure of the exact ramifications of eye-surgery (which may or may not produce superior eyes).
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
wolveraptor wrote:I thought that was far-sightedness. Whatever. At least we know that swing speed has a definite and almost quanitifiable impact on performance, whereas we are unsure of the exact ramifications of eye-surgery (which may or may not produce superior eyes).
Better eyesight will make for a better hitter; arguing otherwise is silly. You have to be able to see well in order to hit a 90mph fastball, and if you can see better you'll hit better, in general. Everything else being equal, though, if you add muscle mass to a player he'll hit the ball farther, because he's stronger and can swing the bat faster. Being able to swing faster also allows you to wait a little longer before commiting to a swing.
Just in case anyone gets an idea to the contrary, I wholeheartedly support a non-toothless anti-steroid policy in professional sports. Baseball is finally moving in the right direction.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
The facts are simple. If you couldn't beat any records without using steroids, and DO beat the records WITH steroids, you have cheated, and that "record" should not stand against any record from a player who did so of their own strength.
Magnetic wrote:The facts are simple. If you couldn't beat any records without using steroids, and DO beat the records WITH steroids, you have cheated, and that "record" should not stand against any record from a player who did so of their own strength.
[Devil's Advocate]It hasn't been established that Bonds has actually used steroids. Many have attested to this, but to date there has been neither an admission nor a positive test from Bonds himself.[/Devil's Advocate]
Having said that, if Bonds isn't on the juice, then I'm a potted plant. This doesn't mean that a player can't come into himself later in his career and put up huge numbers.
Let's face it: Bonds' success isn't just from the steroids. He was a superstar in his youth, probably the best player in baseball for at least a five year stretch. The steroids have made him not only able to play in to his forties, but also some sort of longball-hitting machine. But that's not the only reason he's dwarfing the likes of Ruth. He's also learned patience, which is something I wouldn't expect steroids to help with. It's a little easier to be patient when the pitchers are afraid to go near the plate, but 200 walks don't just happen entirely by accident.
Long story short: Bonds was a superstar, and now he's what superstars become when they add 30 pounds of pharmaceutical beef. He's also learned how to be a better hitter after doing it for the past 20 years in the majors.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
And do you even understand the concept of momentum, which reduces the impact of a lighter bat?
Maybe baseball players don't. Why do they use those corked bats anyways?
Mostly so one can swing the hell out of it. A lighter bat moving fast enough will impart just as much momentum on a ball as one of those big, heavy bats of yesteryear (some of which tipped the scales at over fifty ounces,) while being much easier to swing. A faster swinging, lighter bat gives the batter the ability to attempt to hit more pitches, due to having fractionally more time to assess a pitch and better control over the trajectory of the bat.
And do you even understand the concept of momentum, which reduces the impact of a lighter bat?
Maybe baseball players don't. Why do they use those corked bats anyways?
Mostly so one can swing the hell out of it. A lighter bat moving fast enough will impart just as much momentum on a ball as one of those big, heavy bats of yesteryear (some of which tipped the scales at over fifty ounces,) while being much easier to swing. A faster swinging, lighter bat gives the batter the ability to attempt to hit more pitches, due to having fractionally more time to assess a pitch and better control over the trajectory of the bat.
Of course, the same thing can be achieved legally by going with lighter materials, or reducing the barrel diameter or length. Doing any of these things has other effects, of course, so drilling out the end of the bat gets you there without any other design compromises.
The other reason players might cork a bat: psychology. They think it will help them, and if they believe it will help, it actually will. I've heard of guys putting crushed up superballs into the cavity, thinking that that would give them a little better rebound off the bat (as if 3/4" of maple or ash between the ball and the cavity are meaningless).
(By the way: the only reason for putting actual cork in the cavity: so the bat won't sound hollow when it hits the ball. Cork is less dense than ash, so it still reduces the weight of the bat.)
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
[quote="SCRawl]Better eyesight will make for a better hitter...*snip*[quote]I didn't argue otherwise. I just pointed out that while we can't quantify exactly how much benefit better eyesight will procure, we can pretty much do so for steroid use. I realize now, however, that we could quantify it by showing the percentage of hits increasing with each subsequent "vision level" (20/19, 20/18, etc.). Still, I didn't argue against your original point.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Very interesting, though they didn't rebut this argument:
No scientific advantage? Reducing the mass (lowering the moment-of-inertia) increases the swing speed - which increases batted-ball speed. But at the same time the lower mass reduces the effectiveness of the collision - which decreases the batted-ball speed. Which effect is greater is a toss-up. But since the two effects offset eachother, there appears to be absolutely no scientific advantage to using a corked bat - at least for hitting home runs. There would be an advantage to just making contact, however. Because the bat is lighter and can be swung faster, a player can wait a few milleseconds longer before commiting to a swing. This means he can watch the pitched ball travel about 5 or 6 more feet before deciding to swing. For a slumping player this may help make contact with the ball more often. But, a corked bat will not make the ball go faster or further.
For a professional, I would think that a few milliseconds could easily be the difference between a base hit and a strike.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:For a professional, I would think that a few milliseconds could easily be the difference between a base hit and a strike.
Especially when considering all a hitter must go through: the pitch can vary from 75mph, to almost 100mph. Perfect timing is needed if one is going to make contact with the ball at all, and excellent control is also needed if one wants to hit it decently. A batter must also be aware of any change in direction the ball is making in mid flight.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)
Joe wrote:For a professional, I would think that a few milliseconds could easily be the difference between a base hit and a strike.
Especially when considering all a hitter must go through: the pitch can vary from 75mph, to almost 100mph. Perfect timing is needed if one is going to make contact with the ball at all, and excellent control is also needed if one wants to hit it decently. A batter must also be aware of any change in direction the ball is making in mid flight.
However, without sufficient power, you still won't hit those homers. Barry Bonds' steroid use helped him gain that power. Moreover, even this effect is far more dramatically affected by steroids than bat weight. As I pointed out, a 10% decrease in bat mass would produce nowhere near as much increase in acceleration as a 50% increase in upper-body strength. It's a simple matter of Newtonian physics.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Joe wrote:For a professional, I would think that a few milliseconds could easily be the difference between a base hit and a strike.
Especially when considering all a hitter must go through: the pitch can vary from 75mph, to almost 100mph. Perfect timing is needed if one is going to make contact with the ball at all, and excellent control is also needed if one wants to hit it decently. A batter must also be aware of any change in direction the ball is making in mid flight.
However, without sufficient power, you still won't hit those homers. Barry Bonds' steroid use helped him gain that power. Moreover, even this effect is far more dramatically affected by steroids than bat weight. As I pointed out, a 10% decrease in bat mass would produce nowhere near as much increase in acceleration as a 50% increase in upper-body strength. It's a simple matter of Newtonian physics.
If you want an illustration of the issue, imagine the 1954 World Series with either a juiced-up Vic Wertz or a juiced-up Willie Mays. This was the series which featured one of the most famous plays in baseball history: the Catch —Mays' sprint to deep right-centre field in the Polo Grounds to snatch Vic Wertz's hit which might have been a triple or even an inside-the-park HR (the Polo Grounds' maximum outfield distance was 475ft; where Mays caught the ball was short of the right-CF wall where it was 450ft). A juiced-up Wertz quite possibly gets a two-run homer over the CF wall in that play —which alters baseball history on the spot. Conversely, in the next game, Willie Mays tripled to that same spot over the head of Cleveland OF Vic Wertz, but a juiced-up Mays possibly gets the home run shot on that hit and again baseball history is altered.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
SCRawl wrote:Better eyesight will make for a better hitter...*snip*
I didn't argue otherwise.
Yeah, sorry about that if I appeared to be putting words in your mouth. I recognize that you didn't refute my point, but my statement, taken on its own, makes it seem as though you did.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
Joe wrote:Very interesting, though they didn't rebut this argument:
No scientific advantage? Reducing the mass (lowering the moment-of-inertia) increases the swing speed - which increases batted-ball speed. But at the same time the lower mass reduces the effectiveness of the collision - which decreases the batted-ball speed. Which effect is greater is a toss-up. But since the two effects offset eachother, there appears to be absolutely no scientific advantage to using a corked bat - at least for hitting home runs. There would be an advantage to just making contact, however. Because the bat is lighter and can be swung faster, a player can wait a few milleseconds longer before commiting to a swing. This means he can watch the pitched ball travel about 5 or 6 more feet before deciding to swing. For a slumping player this may help make contact with the ball more often. But, a corked bat will not make the ball go faster or further.
For a professional, I would think that a few milliseconds could easily be the difference between a base hit and a strike.
That's the thing: if hitting the ball as far as possible was all there was to being a successful hitter, everyone would be using 54 ounce bats like Babe Ruth. The way pitchers throw these days, you'd be lucky to get wood on the ball by swinging such a log.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
Patrick Degan wrote:If you want an illustration of the issue, imagine the 1954 World Series with either a juiced-up Vic Wertz or a juiced-up Willie Mays. This was the series which featured one of the most famous plays in baseball history: the Catch —Mays' sprint to deep right-centre field in the Polo Grounds to snatch Vic Wertz's hit which might have been a triple or even an inside-the-park HR (the Polo Grounds' maximum outfield distance was 475ft; where Mays caught the ball was short of the right-CF wall where it was 450ft). A juiced-up Wertz quite possibly gets a two-run homer over the CF wall in that play —which alters baseball history on the spot. Conversely, in the next game, Willie Mays tripled to that same spot over the head of Cleveland OF Vic Wertz, but a juiced-up Mays possibly gets the home run shot on that hit and again baseball history is altered.
Like you mention, stadiums were much bigger from the 20's-50's. The fences were a good 30ish feet further than they are now. Shouldn't that also taint any home run records?
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)
Count Dooku wrote:Like you mention, stadiums were much bigger from the 20's-50's. The fences were a good 30ish feet further than they are now. Shouldn't that also taint any home run records?
They weren't all bigger -- hell, some of the stadiums are still in operation from that era.
More to the point, yes, the size difference between the ballparks would be extremely important when comparing statistics from various eras. But stadium size isn't the only thing that changes: the ball is different today, and pitchers no longer have a 15" high mound with which to dominate hitters. This is why responsible baseball statisticians don't compare players directly; they compensate for these variables. The record books don't care, but, hey, things change -- the game is very different today from what it was decades ago. The players are in better shape, they have surgical procedures to prolong or save careers, and yes, multi-purpose stadiums are common, with dimensions that don't resemble the Polo Grounds.
But steroids are, pun intended, a whole new ballgame. I don't really need to go into the reasons why; this thread is full of them.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
Patrick Degan wrote:If you want an illustration of the issue, imagine the 1954 World Series with either a juiced-up Vic Wertz or a juiced-up Willie Mays. This was the series which featured one of the most famous plays in baseball history: the Catch —Mays' sprint to deep right-centre field in the Polo Grounds to snatch Vic Wertz's hit which might have been a triple or even an inside-the-park HR (the Polo Grounds' maximum outfield distance was 475ft; where Mays caught the ball was short of the right-CF wall where it was 450ft). A juiced-up Wertz quite possibly gets a two-run homer over the CF wall in that play —which alters baseball history on the spot. Conversely, in the next game, Willie Mays tripled to that same spot over the head of Cleveland OF Vic Wertz, but a juiced-up Mays possibly gets the home run shot on that hit and again baseball history is altered.
Like you mention, stadiums were much bigger from the 20's-50's. The fences were a good 30ish feet further than they are now. Shouldn't that also taint any home run records?
Nice try, but ballfields of varying dimensions have been part-and-parcel of the game since the 1870s. The statistics take these variations into account and this has long been considered part of the normal challenge of baseball. Whereas juiced-up steroid freaks have not.
Oh, and BTW, the baseline fences have ranged anywhere from 215-325 feet —only in the 70s has a standard 315ft. minimum distance for a baseline fence been in force (Yankee Stadium's power-alleys were modified accordingly during the rennovation work in 1976).
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Dooku seems to be throwing up a shitload of red herrings. "X was also different then/now. Why aren't people haranguing that?" Just to remind you, we were originally talking about whether steroids are acceptable in the game or not, not how other variables effect home run rates.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Count Dooku wrote:Like you mention, stadiums were much bigger from the 20's-50's. The fences were a good 30ish feet further than they are now. Shouldn't that also taint any home run records?
What a pathetic red herring, of course all kinds of things have changed in all sports between the 30s and now which can make comparing stats then & now somewhat problematic so what?
That doesn't change the central problem of Bonds' (or anybody else in any sports) steroid use which is that they give him an unfair advantage over the all people he actually plays the game with today who aren't cheating. Back in the 30s everybody played on the same grounds so the playing field was still level, by using steroids Bonds is unlevelling the field by effectively making the fences nearer for him than for anybody else.
