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

[Mark Rippetoe]

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."

And what we're telling you is that the reason this works in because of Strength. Steroids make you stronger, and stronger means you're training harder. I don't understand why you don't understand this.

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.)

Bat speed is no more trainable that SVJ, for the same reasons. But a stronger guy hitting the ball with more force at the same bat speed does what to the ball? This is not complicated, although baseball fans seem to thrive on complexity.

[Bluefan75]

And what we're telling you is that the reason this works in because of Strength. Steroids make you stronger, and stronger means you're training harder. I don't understand why you don't understand this.



Bat speed is no more trainable that SVJ, for the same reasons. But a stronger guy hitting the ball with more force at the same bat speed does what to the ball? This is not complicated, although baseball fans seem to thrive on complexity.

To the first point, I think we're saying the same thing, just differently. Of course it makes you stronger. I've never denied strength benefits. But I digress. I will attempt to restrain myself from continuing on that line of thought.

As to the second, this is a serious question, not an attempt to be obtuse. How can you hit a ball with more force than another guy at the same bat speed? Wouldn't the additional force lead to greater bat speed? If I am misunderstanding physics, I'm willing to be corrected. But the force imparted on a moving ball comes completely from how fast the bat is moving on contact, no? Obviously the contact point affects the distance, etc., but we've already established that is not a strength attribute. You could argue a heavier bat, but hardly anyone uses a bat heaving than 35 oz., in part because they can't, or don't believe they can maintain the bat speed. So two different guys, using the same weight bat, hitting the ball in the same spot at the same bat speed could result in different levels of force behind it? Again, not trying to be obtuse, serious physics question. I tried googling, but the best I could find was higher bat speed = longest balls, and real light bats are no good.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Your second is an interesting point. Let me think about this.

[sbrl_19]

Bat speed is no more trainable that SVJ.

Really? If you get a baseball player strong, he won’t swing his 33oz or so bat faster than he swung it when he wasn’t strong?

Or is the point that if that guy’s bat sped up, it’s not from training bat speed, but rather from maximizing expression of genetic potential by getting strong?

[Scaldrew]

If the speed is the same, it has to be mass. The stronger, roided up baseball player is also much bigger. The speed could be the same, but the weight of the body moving "into the bat", so to speak, would contribute to a higher output of force, no? A big guy moving at 30mph is going to hit harder than a small guy moving at the same speed, similar to how two guys both doing a set of 8 chins are going to display different amounts of force production (especially if both are moving at the same speed). The same batting speed would be accounted for by virtue of the fact that the bigger guy also needs to move more mass than the smaller guy, so net the same batting speed, but a lot more effort expended to get the arms moving as quickly.

Iunno, I'm just thinking out loud here. I doubt any of what I think here is right, but as Coach Sullivan says in an entirely different context, "it make sense".

[Mark Rippetoe]

Really? If you get a baseball player strong, he won’t swing his 33oz or so bat faster than he swung it when he wasn’t strong?

Or is the point that if that guy’s bat sped up, it’s not from training bat speed, but rather from maximizing expression of genetic potential by getting strong?

I think it probably has to do with the mass and force behind the bat after contact with the ball is made. There is more to the equation than merely bat/ball speed and bat/ball mass, since the observation that bigger guys hit the ball further seems to be independent of bat speed. Maybe it's simply longer arms, but steroids do not lengthen arms. Obviously, bat speed is not infinitely trainable, since it is dependent on power. But in the same way a lineman with a 26-inch SVJ hits you harder if you double his squat, bat follow-through must be a factor.

[Polishdude20]

I think it could be the fact that the ball imparts a force to the bat. The split second before the bat hits the ball it is travelling at maximum speed. Right when the ball touches the bat, it adds an opposite momentum to the bat and causes it to slow down. The amount that it slows down is dependent on the force the bat can apply to the ball. The more force you can hit the ball with, the less "rebound" there is? So a stronger individual is able to keep their bat steady and more rigid with less rebound which causes more efficient energy transfer. Just like straight elbows in the clean.

[d3singh]

A bat hitting a ball is a conservation of momentum problem. Momentum depends on mass and velocity. The effective mass hitting the ball might be affected by the batter's strength (i.e. mass and rigidity of the arms, etc.). This is an interesting biomechanics question.

[FredM]

I think it probably has to do with the mass and force behind the bat after contact with the ball is made. There is more to the equation than merely bat/ball speed and bat/ball mass, since the observation that bigger guys hit the ball further seems to be independent of bat speed. Maybe it's simply longer arms, but steroids do not lengthen arms. Obviously, bat speed is not infinitely trainable, since it is dependent on power. But in the same way a lineman with a 26-inch SVJ hits you harder if you double his squat, bat follow-through must be a factor.

Another way to think about it is the stronger person's bat will decelerate slower after impact and F=ma. Real objects are squishy and the V in mV is higher for the stronger individual, even though initial bat velocity just before impact is the same. The ball also gets more bounce off the bat after the greater compression attainable from the stronger individual.

Probably. I admit it's been a while since AP Physics.

[Bluefan75]

I think it probably has to do with the mass and force behind the bat after contact with the ball is made. There is more to the equation than merely bat/ball speed and bat/ball mass, since the observation that bigger guys hit the ball further seems to be independent of bat speed. Maybe it's simply longer arms, but steroids do not lengthen arms. Obviously, bat speed is not infinitely trainable, since it is dependent on power. But in the same way a lineman with a 26-inch SVJ hits you harder if you double his squat, bat follow-through must be a factor.

Jose Altuve is listed at 5'6", and word is he is closer to 5'4." While he's no Aaron Judge, he did hit 24 HRs this year, and 24 last year(when HR were much less plentiful.) Now maybe he's simply an exception freak, but he's a small guy and he holds his own for power.

It's likely not a coincidence that the two biggest home runs guys(Stanton and Judge) are basically the two biggest guys that come to the plate on a regular basis, but I'm still struggling with the idea that there is some kind of force that is involved but is not expressed in greater bat speed.

I know it's not a perfect parallel, but it has been shown that clubhead speed is what matters in golf when it comes to getting distance. A lighter club that travels faster has better distance than the heavier club. And strength makes little to no difference to a driver if it cannot be properly harnessed into the clubhead speed. (But of course, if you can get it right, then there are significant benefits). Strength really comes into play when it comes to keeping the clubhead moving through rough, though. Which is why I'm still kind of stuck on this, as that is what I have really read up on when it comes to this type of physics.