Interesting Article On Steroids and Hitting

[Taco De Muerte]

http://www.thediamondangle.com/archive/june02/steroids.html

[MrUniverse09]

steroids don't make a hitter better at hitting. They make him better at hitting it out of the park.

[ssarge]

steroids don't make a hitter better at hitting. They make him better at hitting it out of the park.
Yeah, but I wonder if that is so soley because of additional strength? It seems almost unquestionable that additional strength helps the cause, although it is almost certainly enhanced strength of the body core, not the arms.

But I would think the additional QUICKNESS made possible by anabolic use is more a factor than raw strength. The longer you can wait to initiate the swing, the more frequently the elite hitter will make optimal or near optimal contact. Game of Shadows touched on this briefly. And I think this would argue for the case that steroids actually DO make a better - not just more powerful - hitter.

And finally, the recuperative assist given by anabolics is without question a factor. 162 games (and 700 PAs) in 180 days is unbelievably grueling.

[hiddengem]

steroids don't make a hitter better at hitting. They make him better at hitting it out of the park.

They absolutely make you a better hitter. Sarge hit it perfect. The explosive power and quickness that you gain from certain drugs makes one feel superhuman.

Have you ever noticed how deep in the zone Bonds lets the ball get before exploding on it? When you lose strength and quickness, you feel the urge to go get the ball and thus don't wait as long and because of that your hitting suffers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The only interesting thing about that article is how off-base it is.

No less a source than Ted Williams, considered by many the greatest pure hitter of all time, cites three key elements to hitting a baseball effectively in his book, "The Science of Hitting". A good hitter must identify a pitch to hit, know enough about the pitcher and the game situation to give himself the best chance to succeed, and put hands and hips into motion to drive the pitch. Nowhere does Williams mention that muscle mass aides in any of those critical elements. Williams, himself, of course, was rail-thin, and yet, he managed to crank out 521 career homers.



On a 90 MPH pitch, the ball will get to the plate in about .4 seconds. The hitter has about .2 seconds to recognize the pitch speed, break, and location, and decide if he's going to swing or not. Then the hitter needs about .15 seconds to actually swing at the pitch.

Your vision is basically increased by being stronger and quicker to the ball, thus helping in overall hitting. The time you have to look at the pitch is longer because the time it takes you to actually swing (get to the ball) is shorter. Pretty simple.


Sure, added muscle mass may increase the distance a player is able to hit a baseball, but what negative effect does that added mass have in altering the fluidity of the player's swing and, thus, his ability to hit the ball in the first place?


This is nonsense. Fluidity? Are they swimming out there? These guy's swings are so tight and compact, it's all about getting the the ball quickly. It doesn't matter that Bonds is so bundled up that he can't probably wipe his own rear end. When he's in that batters box, it's all about quick twitch hips, torso, shoulders, and hands.

So many more things wrong with that article.

[wogdoggy]

Steroids keep you in the game longer as well...MOST of the players of Barry's age are going down in statistics.barry because of steroid use has remained in the game longer and has improving statistics.

[Goooooo]

The Article makes some good points. It makes sense that more muscle mass will impinge on bat speed, for bat speed think Ted Williams Frame, the best pull-hitter of all time.


In any event, a players peak bat speed is not affected at all by steroids, but his 'valley' bat speed, the speed that hitter can only attain when he's in a slump or hurting, that will not occur as frequently with steroids, because he'll have more stamina and strength for the long haul.


For example, if a hitter is a peak .300 hitter 60% of the time and a Valley .200hitter 40% of the time then he'll hit .260. But steroids will make the valleys less frequent, and less pronounced, such that the hitter will still hit .300 at peak and will be at peak 70% of the time, and will only valley out 30% of the time, and at .230 instead of .200.

Now the hitter is a .279 instead of .260 hitter not because his peak hitting ability has increased, but because he just slumps less often and less drastically.

Steroids also help to avoid injury, quicken time returning from injury and make you stronger if you workout.

[wogdoggy]

They absolutely make you a better hitter. Sarge hit it perfect. The explosive power and quickness that you gain from certain drugs makes one feel superhuman.

Have you ever noticed how deep in the zone Bonds lets the ball get before exploding on it? When you lose strength and quickness, you feel the urge to go get the ball and thus don't wait as long and because of that your hitting suffers.


gem if they made you a better hitter then HULK HOGAN would play pro ball.maybe helps reaction time sure.

[Sorpe]

There's a difference between being made a better hitter and becoming a hitter when you don't even play the sport. Unless I missed the pay per view event, I don't believe the Hulkster plays baseball. Might be kind of hard to adjust your posture and rotate with that big belt around your waist.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Care to elaborate on how being stronger will decrease the bat speed of a major leaguer? Look at Bonds' swing and point out where he is "impinged" upon by being too muscular. Where he is "impinged" on, is out in the field, and in throwing, because THAT takes flexibility. Going from point A to point B with his lightning quick, torque filled, twitchy swing is musclar freedom; allowing them to bask in the HR sun.

How would only a valley be affected but not a peak? It's more than just maintaining a fresh/quick swing in the dog days. It's about being stronger in general, allowing you to rise above your non-steroid using norm. Peaks and valleys both go up, although because of stamina reasons, the valleys might go up slightly more. It's not one or the other though, it's both. That's the whole point of taking them.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

gem if they made you a better hitter then HULK HOGAN would play pro ball.maybe helps reaction time sure.

Helping reaction time and speeding up your bat DOES make you a better hitter wogdoggy. Hogan doesn't have the hand eye coordination required to hit to begin with. That would be like putting a silk hat on a pig.

[ssarge]

It doesn't matter that Bonds is so bundled up that he can't probably wipe his own rear end.
LOL.

I think he's got a guy for that. Assumedly, the Giants give the guy clubhouse access, just like they have Bonds's THREE personal trainers (strength guy, speed guy, and I don't know what the other guy does - but there were 3). What a farce.

Regards,

Scott

[Goooooo]

Helping reaction time and speeding up your bat DOES make you a better hitter wogdoggy. Hogan doesn't have the hand eye coordination required to hit to begin with. That would be like putting a silk hat on a pig.

I see, your definition of 'obvious' is based on what you want to believe is the truth.

Mine is based on reaching a conclusion after verifiable evidence and facts are analyzed for cause, effect, and correlation.

I guess we simply have different ways of arriving on what we believe is the truth.

Also, show me the evidence you have that Steroids quickens one's swing.

If anything it stands to reason that more muscle mass will impinge on range of motion and make bat speed slower.

You want proof ?

look at a ballerina, and then compare her to a huge bodybuilder. Who is more flexible and has better range of motion?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I never used the word "obvious."

A ballerina and a body builder? You don't see anything wrong with that comparison? We're talking about a hitter here, who performs a hitting motion that takes him about .10 seconds to complete compared to the average guy being about .15. You don't think fast twitch muscles have anything to do with this? And you don't think having more stamina with that added strength means anything throughout a long, grueling season? It appears common sense has flown out the window.

[Taco De Muerte]

Sultan - Don't try to pass off your opinion as a fact. While I don't agree with everything the article states - It does make some solid points. To completely dismiss it because it didn't say that steroids are a miracle drug that can turn a hitter like alex sanchez into a hitter like mickey mantle, doesn't mean it's " totally off-base ".

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Never tried to pass anything off as "fact." Most things we write is opinion, it comes from our brains, through our fingers, and appears into words on your screen. The reaction time stuff is fact though, and I fail to see how anyone can look at the numbers and not understand how steroids can make you a better hitter.

What solid points does the article make?

[swingbuster]

Shorten all the steriod HRs by 40 feet and add the numbers back up

[Taco De Muerte]

Never tried to pass anything off as "fact." Most things we write is opinion, it comes from our brains, through our fingers, and appears into words on your screen. The reaction time stuff is fact though, and I fail to see how anyone can look at the numbers and not understand how steroids can make you a better hitter.

What solid points does the article make?

Oh your certainly trying to pass off your opinion as facts - you pretty much dismissed the entire article and anyone who doesn't say steroids make you a much better hitter.

Is it possible that they do - sure, but not a fact.

Infact - The " tough " steroid testing hasn't had much of an effect on offense. Almost an identical number of homeruns were hit last year as a few years ago. Also, Slugging% was actually a bit up last year compared to a few years ago, and run scoring is almost indentical to a few years ago. As for this year - so far, homeruns are being hit at a rapid pace. What's really funny is - Strikeout totals decreased by 5% lastyear, but It doesn't matter anyway - because pitchers DON'T benefit from steroids. < sarcasm>

[Sultan_1895-1948]

As for this year - so far, homeruns are being hit at a rapid pace.[/B]

Now you're trying to pass your opinion about me off as fact, as if you know my intentions. Wrong move.

As far as homeruns this year, for me, it's clear something was done to the ball. I mentioned this after the first couple games on this board, even started a thread about the ball specs, and how it seems they were increased. Wasn't sure what motive MLB would have for it, but this was all I could come up with. Your response. People using the numbers to say "look, see, steroids don't help, or they were never that prevalent." Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[Taco De Muerte]

Now you're trying to pass your opinion about me off as fact, as if you know my intentions. Wrong move.

Well, I've seen a lot of your other posts - and you seem to post in every bonds/steroid thread, and you completely dismiss anything somebody has to say that doesn't " fit in " with your opinion.


As far as homeruns this year, for me, it's clear something was done to the ball. I mentioned this after the first couple games on this board, even started a thread about the ball specs, and how it seems they were increased. Wasn't sure what motive MLB would have for it, but this was all I could come up with. Your response. People using the numbers to say "look, see, steroids don't help, or they were never that prevalent." Uh huh. :rolleyes:


Right, I'm sure MLB did something to the ball - what's next, will they start handing out aluminum bats ?

As for me saying steroids don't " help " - never said that, But i'm saying the " numbers " arguement isn't really a strong arguement to use.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, I've seen a lot of your other posts - and you seem to post in every bonds/steroid thread, and you completely dismiss anything somebody has to say that doesn't " fit in " with your opinion.


And I'm stating my opinion like everyone else. Do I need to put IMO next to every word so you feel more comfortable.



Right, I'm sure MLB did something to the ball - what's next, will they start handing out aluminum bats ?


Well, with around 30 companies making bats nowdays, and with them all competing to make the lightest and hardest bats possible, aluminum wont be necessary.

Easy to pass of the ball issue as "yeah right." FACT IS, that within MLB's own ball specs, a significant increase can be made in the ball's liveliness. From watching these games so far this year, and some of these swings that are producing warning track flies and homers, IMO somethin's up.


As for me saying steroids don't " help " - never said that, But i'm saying the " numbers " arguement isn't really a strong arguement to use.

Then what exactly are you saying. What numbers argument. You mean that 50 homers no longer means what it used to, or that this era will produce an ungodly number of 300, 400, and 500 homer guys? Those numbers?

This article is about whether they help or not, and IMO it made bogus claims such as "flexibility" issues, and that strength doesn't help you hit a ball harder. You apparently agree with it, or seem to want to minimize their benefits for a hitter.

[Taco De Muerte]

Easy to pass of the ball issue as "yeah right." FACT IS, that within MLB's own ball specs, a significant increase can be made in the ball's liveliness. From watching these games so far this year, and some of these swings that are producing warning track flies and homers, IMO somethin's up.


Sure, it's possible, but certainly not a fact. It's also possible that jose lima served sosa " meatballs " in 1998 so that he can beat mcgwire. It's possible, but not a fact.

Then what exactly are you saying. What numbers argument. You mean that 50 homers no longer means what it used to, or that this era will produce an ungodly number of 300, 400, and 500 homer guys? Those numbers?.

No matter how " easy " you believe today's hitters have it - that still doesn't change the fact that your arguement's based on numbers doesn't really say much. I could go and say " well giambi and sheffield seem to be doing fine without steroids in 2006 " - what does that mean ? Nothing, absolutely nothing.


This article is about whether they help or not, and IMO it made bogus claims such as "flexibility" issues, and that strength doesn't help you hit a ball harder. You apparently agree with it, or seem to want to minimize their benefits for a hitter.

Yeah, sure, I'm trying to " minimize " its benefits - whatever you say. As I said before, if someone doesn't think steroids could turn alex sanchez into mickey mantle - you pretty much disregard anythingelse they say and call them " apologists ", despite the fact that you refuse to believe amphetamines help athletes play better, even when professional MLB players have said they do.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation - you have your opinions, I have mine.

[ssarge]

look at a ballerina, and then compare her to a huge bodybuilder. Who is more flexible and has better range of motion?
Compare her to an NFL lineman, and it actually gets interesting.

Guys who go from 260 lbs to 330 lbs while in college, and congruently see their 40 time DROP. Substantially.

I personally see that as pretty good "evidence" of something beyond a good weight room and training table.


I think Ben Johnson and Kelli White (to name two of MANY) are pretty flexible. And they are obviously about as quick as any human being has EVER been.


I see an increase from 48 to 73 as pretty good evidence, too.


I understand others may chose to disagree.

Regards,

Scott

[Sultan_1895-1948]

that still doesn't change the fact that your arguement's based on numbers doesn't really say much.


When have I brought up numbers, other than asking you if that's what you were talking about? There is no argument, and there are no numbers. Talking about the changing of the ball specs was brought up when YOU used these offensive numbers as a reason why steroids don't help hitters. It appears to me like they [/i]have[/i] done something to the ball the way it's been flying all over the yard. It wouldn't be that difficult. As for steroid testing meaning anything right now, how can it? They don't test for HGH, and the option to take them without being caught won't go away, not with lab-rats staying ahead of the curve.

if someone doesn't think steroids could turn alex sanchez into mickey mantle - you pretty much disregard anythingelse they say and call them " apologists ", despite the fact that you refuse to believe amphetamines help athletes play better, even when professional MLB players have said they do.


lol, go ahead and quote me EVER saying steroids can turn alex sanchez, or any player like him, into a Mickey Mantle type player. There's your challenge. I'll mail you $100 cash this instant if you can. Ain't gonna happen. Stop putting words in my mouth. Seems you've misunderstood my position, and that's fine, just don't go making up stuff. You realize that not everyone who takes steroids beefs up, right. You get out of them what you want. Different types, different amounts, different workout programs...it all depends on the user and what benefits he wants.

I've also never said that greenies don't help baseball players at all. I've said I think they can certainly help get them through a the long grind of a season on a case by case basis. But that they're nothing like steroids, which permanently alter your chemical makeup and increase your stength. I think greenies get you back up to 100% when you're feeling sluggish, and may help you focus better when you otherwise might not be; and although you may feel like it when you're on them, they dont take you past 100%.

[ESPNFan]

Taco, not to derail the Spanish inquisition here, but you were stating your opinion as a fact about a week ago.

Taco De Muerte I really could care less who disagrees with me. I'm just stating the facts. I'm not here to bash anyone's favorite player, I'm just stating the truth.

Hank Aaron took amphetamines, he took it to get an edge over his opponents. Perry threw spitballs, Ruth corked ( according to billjames atleast), the list goes on and on.

It's no different than what bonds did, I don't care about the " degree " of it, the intentions for all cheaters are the same, well except cheaters like shoeless joe who choose to throw games for money. That type of cheating is the worst.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=516369#post516369

In fact you were claiming to know that the intent of every cheater was the same. Given what Sultan was saying I'd say he has a better shot of being closer to stating a fact than you were.

And just to be thorough here the guy who wrote the article was basically trying to assert his opinion as fact as well so its a mute point. And considering that guy who wrote it wasn't a "expert" and that he was a Giant's fan I'd say he might have even had an agenda. (Bonds apologist anyone?)
Anybody who has a decent head on there shoulders who posts here is probably just as credible with their opinion as that guy or even more so.

And as far as what Steroids can do for a player Texas Rangers pitcher Kenny Rogers once told Sports Illustrated: "Basically, steroids can jump you a level or two. The average player can become a star and the star player can become a superstar. And the superstar? Forget it. He can do things we've never seen before."

Notice he said "can". Its not a "fact" but the amount of people who were using them would tend to give more than a bit of credibility to the argument that Steroids help with more than just hitting home runs.

Just my opinion ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, funny how "Ruth corked" was mentioned right after "I'm just stating facts." That's not even an opinion, and it's not a fact, it's a false rumor.

That's where I was coming from when reading that article ESPNfan. I thought it was clearly written by someone who took a slanted angle toward either apologizing for, or minimizing the effects of steroids, because it was full of inaccuracies. When I mentioned facts about how much time a hitter has to react, nobody wants to respond and use common sense about that. Just attack me for stating my opinion on the article :rolleyes:

[Taco De Muerte]

Taco, not to derail the Spanish inquisition here, but you were stating your opinion as a fact about a week ago.

That would be funny if I was actually hispanic.




http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=516369#post516369


And just to be thorough here the guy who wrote the article was basically trying to assert his opinion as fact as well so its a mute point. And considering that guy who wrote it wasn't a "expert" and that he was a Giant's fan I'd say he might have even had an agenda. (Bonds apologist anyone?



Anybody who has a decent head on there shoulders who posts here is probably just as credible with their opinion as that guy or even more so.

Right, and I don't think anyone here said he was correct. So I don't understand what was the point of your post.


And as far as what Steroids can do for a player Texas Rangers pitcher Kenny Rogers once told Sports Illustrated:

Notice he said "can". Its not a "fact" but the amount of people who were using them would tend to give more than a bit of credibility to the argument that Steroids help with more than just hitting home runs.

Just my opinion ;)

LOL, it's funny how you doubt things a well respected pitching coach like tom house says, but you believe some clown who beats up on 5'0 cameramen.

Well done " ESPNfan ", not only do you try to insult me with bad jokes, but you also take the word of a criminal over a respected pitching coach like tom house.

Congrats.

[ESPNFan]

That would be funny if I was actually hispanic.

Actually its funny if you know what the Spanish Inquisition is... :rolleyes:


Right, and I don't think anyone here said he was correct. So I don't understand what was the point of your post.

The point was to point out that your were going overboard on Sultan when you yourself had actually done what you were accusing him of a week ago.

It was fairly clear.


LOL, it's funny how you doubt things a well respected pitching coach like tom house says, but you believe some clown who beats up on 5'0 cameramen.

Well done " ESPNfan ", not only do you try to insult me with bad jokes, but you also take the word of a criminal over a respected pitching coach like tom house.

Congrats.
First off I wasn't insulting you. Second of all its only a bad joke if you don't get it, which in turn makes it a better joke for the rest of us :laugh

Third since when is assault grounds for questioning ones credibility? Does Kenny Rogers have a monetary stake in how players gain muscle mass like Tom House does? And for the record Tom House's drug use makes him a criminal too doesn't it? Thought so.