Probably Silly BS, but I'll ask anyhow...

[johnnys]

In so far as guys hit more home runs, not really, with the one exception I noted. The 90s was an era of new ballparks, all of which were smaller than their predecessor(chicks dig the long ball). That had a bigger impact than PEDs on home run totals.

I'm not saying stronger is not better, not by any stretch, and pitching likely saw a great benefit. But his point was trying to say that the recovery argument that was put out was bunk, and it really wasn't. Mark McGwire hit a bunch of home runs before he weighed anything. Barry Bonds was the best player in the game before any thing ever looked funny. They didn't need the PEDs to be better players. Their balls in play were home runs already. Stronger did not make them hit the ball any more purely. What they did need them for though was to be able to come to the plate every game. Is it the strength that made them able to do so? Sure. But it was 40-50 extra at bats a season they were taking them for, not 40-50 extra feet on fly balls.

Do "big guys" frequently hit outfield fly balls a few feet from the fence? That seems to be the situation you believe strength would improve. And there's no chance that getting stronger WITHOUT PEDs might result in fewer injuries and allow for 40 more ABs?

[Bluefan75]

I have to ask, Mr. Fan, if you're at all serious when you say this. Surely, you've had bad training days where you could barely keep the bar level or where you were shaking under the weight? It's days like these that prove precisely the point that balance is a factor of strength. So if adding 100lb to your bench/press does not help you in handling a 2lb bat, I can't think of anything that does. Coordination seems to me to be balancing an object throughout a desired and specific ROM, so adding those same 100lb should help that, too, no?

Call me a jerk if you will, but I think you're conflating the idea that "a stronger guy is a better athlete" with "a stronger athlete has the potential to be a better athlete". The argument isn't that stronger people can outperform athletes, but that, ceteris paribus, the stronger athlete is the better athlete, emphasis on paribus.

But you're getting to the genetic freak stage. A round ball travelling at 90+ mph and a round bat. You can either do it or you can't. It's like the SVJ. You can improve it a little with the right work, but you're not going to go from ok to great at it from strength. Hitting a ball moving that fast with a round piece of wood in such a way that it consistently travels over 300 feet in the air is not something you make yourself do better by getting stronger. It can be a game changer if you can make that contact, but considering 360 and 420 usually have the same result(HR), you're not looking to the added strength to hit it farther, since you can already do that. You're looking to it to keep you in games you might otherwise have had to sit out.

Do "big guys" frequently hit outfield fly balls a few feet from the fence? That seems to be the situation you believe strength would improve. And there's no chance that getting stronger WITHOUT PEDs might result in fewer injuries and allow for 40 more ABs?

The point is that the guys you are talking about already hit it far enough. As I stated, the one exception was infielders who never could hit home runs. *They* benefited greatly from PEDs, because they had warning track power that suddenly the couple extra MPH of bat speed gave them the extra oomph. But that occurs far less often than popular theory thinks. The number of balls that would have gone out that didn't due to a couple MPH is far smaller than balls affected by wind. The big guys can hit it further to begin with. What difference does it make if Giancarlo Stanton hits it 450 instead of 430? It's a home run either way.

Sure you can get stronger without PEDs. But as Rip himself says, you need to sleep, recover and eat properly for the adaptations to take hold. How does a guy do that when he has a game every night, with batting practice beforehand, etc? The PEDs allowed them to lift and recover and still play, while not getting hurt. *That's* why guys took them. Over a season, it's been shown that even the worst players, with 600 PAs, are going to do certain things. They are likely to hit 8-10 HRs, get walked a number of times, and get 125 or so hits. (Actual numbers may be slightly different, but illustrate the point). The best guys, well, another 40-50 PAs can lead to some serious additional production.

There are plenty of guys who for one reason or another(media favoritism, the dreaded "eye test", really didn't do it) who aren't suspected of PEDs and put up some real nice numbers. I'm just saying the popular myth that guys took PEDs to hit the ball farther is really not the case. Teams can just move the fences in if they want to. It was about staying the in the lineup far more than hitting it farther.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Hitting a ball moving that fast with a round piece of wood in such a way that it consistently travels over 300 feet in the air is not something you make yourself do better by getting stronger.

We know. That's why there are two components to preparing for a physical performance: Training, which makes you stronger, like "the big guys" already are, so you can hit the ball harder and sprint the bases faster, if you're not a "big guy" already, and Practice, which makes you more accurate and precise, like the guys who get to play MLB already are, but what everybody has to do anyway to stay really good at it. As we've said all along. But I understand that it's easier to refute your own personal version of our argument.

[dmgetz]

But you're getting to the genetic freak stage. A round ball travelling at 90+ mph and a round bat. You can either do it or you can't. It's like the SVJ. You can improve it a little with the right work, but you're not going to go from ok to great at it from strength. Hitting a ball moving that fast with a round piece of wood in such a way that it consistently travels over 300 feet in the air is not something you make yourself do better by getting stronger. It can be a game changer if you can make that contact, but considering 360 and 420 usually have the same result(HR), you're not looking to the added strength to hit it farther, since you can already do that. You're looking to it to keep you in games you might otherwise have had to sit out.


The point is that the guys you are talking about already hit it far enough. As I stated, the one exception was infielders who never could hit home runs. *They* benefited greatly from PEDs, because they had warning track power that suddenly the couple extra MPH of bat speed gave them the extra oomph. But that occurs far less often than popular theory thinks. The number of balls that would have gone out that didn't due to a couple MPH is far smaller than balls affected by wind. The big guys can hit it further to begin with. What difference does it make if Giancarlo Stanton hits it 450 instead of 430? It's a home run either way.

The advantage of strength, for a results perspective, isn't hitting the ball 430v 450 feet when you square it up, it's hitting the ball 350 v 400 when you don't. That's why a guy like Aaron Judge can hit opposite-field home runs off his fists, while a guy like Mookie Betts has to pull the ball with a higher quality of contact to put it over the wall.

[Bluefan75]

The advantage of strength, for a results perspective, isn't hitting the ball 430v 450 feet when you square it up, it's hitting the ball 350 v 400 when you don't. That's why a guy like Aaron Judge can hit opposite-field home runs off his fists, while a guy like Mookie Betts has to pull the ball with a higher quality of contact to put it over the wall.

Yes, but the number of times that situation arises is far less than people think. It's why the middle infielders were the one exception. They really did only have warning track power most of the time, and so the added strength sent a few balls out.

Look at this past season. Out of nowhere, there was a new record for HRs. Did everyone suddenly get religion on strength training? Did pitchers all of a sudden forget how to pitch? Did the wind blow out in every park every game? Or was it the ball?

The effects of being stronger on hitting home runs, while not negligible, are also quite overblown, because there many factors involved. Of course if everything else is equal, stronger will be better. And there is a certain level of strength that is required before you're even talking about home runs, but being an MLB player pretty much guarantees that question is already answered(very few guys can't crush the batting practice pitches). But from a batting perspective, after a certain point, the strength benefit comes from being able to do it more often(the practice Rip mentioned) without breaking down. I guess the bigger question would be, is bat speed something that can be improved near infinitely, or is it like SVJ where genetics limit the upside? I tend towards the latter myself, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Speed? Absolutely stronger is better. But no one ever thought of that and PEDs. Pitching? Interesting one. Only because the thought process is that we've reached the limit of what the human arm can do without beginning to shear the muscles from the bone. But, you also have the thought process that led to this thread, so I would think there is still room to find velocity. But then you get into the area of breaking balls, it's not about throwing it past the hitter all the time, etc. Although, again, on the recovery side, a stronger pitcher can do it more often. Nolan Ryan is the prime example. But if it weren't for Roger Clemens, again, no one would have thought PEDs other than hitting more home runs.

[Matt Stacks]

The advantage of strength, for a results perspective, isn't hitting the ball 430v 450 feet when you square it up, it's hitting the ball 350 v 400 when you don't. That's why a guy like Aaron Judge can hit opposite-field home runs off his fists, while a guy like Mookie Betts has to pull the ball with a higher quality of contact to put it over the wall.

Right. Guys who are strong mis-hit balls out of the ballpark all the time. Guys who aren't, well, break bats on pop-outs to the SS.

[dmgetz]

Yes, but the number of times that situation arises is far less than people think. It's why the middle infielders were the one exception. They really did only have warning track power most of the time, and so the added strength sent a few balls out.

The effects of being stronger on hitting home runs, while not negligible, are also quite overblown, because there many factors involved. Of course if everything else is equal, stronger will be better.

Right, and this is the case being made. No one's saying that without the requisite skills to hit major league pitching (hand-eye coordination, reflexes, pitch recognition, mechanics of the swing, etc) a strong guy would be a great power hitter, or a great player. Of course, if if you gave a season's worth of MLB at bats to an elite powerlifter, they wouldn't hit a single home run because they lack said skills. But if you take a guy who does have the skills (hand-eye, coordination, etc) and get him from "squatting" 220, high, on a Smith machine to legitimately squatting 405, he's going to be a better player.

I agree the specific example of home runs is relatively rare, but it was just meant to illustrative, and the point holds when talking about batted balls more generally. There's a very strong correlation between exit velocity and successful outcomes for a batter, so if you're not talking about homeruns versus flyouts, getting a guy's strength up and getting his average exit velocity from 85mph to 90mph is likely to make a pretty significant difference.

[Jay Mund]

To be fair, at that level, you need to hit the ball perfectly in order to send it out

If two guys hit it perfectly, and one guy is stronger... You're not following that?

Regardless, you can't separate the effect that PEDs had on a guy's ability to recover from the increased strength that comes from taking them. So, you're basically saying that being stronger makes you more durable, and less likely to miss games, which I agree with entirely, because taking PEDs makes you stronger, regardless of whether or not you train. So, I agree, getting stronger makes you more durable and less likely to miss games and PEDs helped with that. The idea that recovery ability and strength are somehow two totally different qualities of testosterone, etc., is not accurate.

[Brodie Butland]

The advantage of strength, for a results perspective, isn't hitting the ball 430v 450 feet when you square it up, it's hitting the ball 350 v 400 when you don't. That's why a guy like Aaron Judge can hit opposite-field home runs off his fists, while a guy like Mookie Betts has to pull the ball with a higher quality of contact to put it over the wall.

It's not just home runs. Good infielders have a lot of range. If a batter wants to shoot a gap, he needs a enough velocity so the infielders don't have time to get to the ball. Especially if he gets jammed on an inside pitch or has to lean out a bit to hit an outside pitch. Stronger batters means a higher exit velocity, especially where the contact isn't on the "sweet spot."

The other advantage is that the harder a batter hits a ball, the more likely things happen that would turn a routine ground ball into a base hit or an error. Bad hops, lack of time to react, etc. Obviously hitters don't try to make it a practice of hitting directly to fielders, but we've all seen examples where a ball was hit straight at a fielder and he didn't have the reaction time to field it. There's a reason there's an expression in baseball: "If you hit the ball hard, good things will happen."

[Bluefan75]

If two guys hit it perfectly, and one guy is stronger... You're not following that?

Regardless, you can't separate the effect that PEDs had on a guy's ability to recover from the increased strength that comes from taking them. So, you're basically saying that being stronger makes you more durable, and less likely to miss games, which I agree with entirely, because taking PEDs makes you stronger, regardless of whether or not you train. So, I agree, getting stronger makes you more durable and less likely to miss games and PEDs helped with that. The idea that recovery ability and strength are somehow two totally different qualities of testosterone, etc., is not accurate.

What I've been saying is that, the popular thought process has been "PEDs=Home Runs." No trainer went to McGwire and said "Hey Mark, you hit the ball 450 feet already, how about 480?" They said "If you take this, you will be better able to stay in the lineup and train harder without breaking yourself down, which will lead to more PAs, which based on statistical distribution, will result in X more HRs." It's not that testosterone has different qualities, it's the reasoning for why ball players take them. With the one exception, the PEDs really did not jump homer numbers based on strength. And the other benefits that have been mentioned are certainly valid. But the number of times the situation is such that the added strength leads to a different result is much smaller than people think. Wind and player positioning have as big or bigger an impact on those. But 600 PAs of Barry Bonds vs 4500 PAs of of him and 150 of Mario Mendoza will *always* yield greater benefits for a team, hence the bigger benefit of PEDs.

My earlier question remains unanswered: is bat speed something that is trainable to a near infinite level, or more like SVJ where some improvement can be gotten, but is pretty much determined by genetics? (ie, you can't train a 22 year old to take his bat speed from 70 mph to 90mph. 75 is the ceiling.)