Reuters: Physicist shows how steroids can fuel home runs

[MyDogSparty]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Steroids can help batters hit 50 percent more home runs by boosting their muscle mass by just 10 percent, a U.S. physicist said on Thursday.

Calculations show that, by putting on 10 percent more muscle mass, a batter can swing about 5 percent faster, increasing the ball's speed by 4 percent as it leaves the bat.

Depending on the ball's trajectory, this added speed could take it into home run territory 50 percent more often, said Roger Tobin of Tufts University in Boston.

"A 4 percent increase in ball speed, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, can increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent," said Tobin, whose study will be published in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Physics.

Tobin, who normally studies condensed matter and physics, wondered if professional baseball players who have recently been accused of boosting their performance with steroids really would benefit from using the drugs.

"If you look at other sports, you don't see radical changes in performance. No one is running a 6-second 100-meter dash, no matter what they are taking," Tobin said in a telephone interview.

BONDS NOT FOCUS OF STUDY

Tobin read reports about steroids that said they could add about 10 percent to an athlete's total muscle mass. Could this be enough to help San Francisco Giants player Barry Bonds, dogged by allegations of past steroid use, hit his record-breaking 756th career home run last month?

"I haven't tried to look at Barry Bonds specifically so I haven't looked at his weight numbers," Tobin said.

What he did look at was the power of a batter's swing, and how it might affect a baseball.

An extra 10 pounds (4.5 kg) of muscle, he said, could add just enough extra to a batter's swing to send the ball out of the park, or at least into the stands.

It works for pitchers, too, but not as well.

He calculated that a 10 percent increase in muscle mass should increase the speed of a thrown ball by about 5 percent, or 4 to 5 mph (6.4 to 8 kph) for a pitcher who throws a 90-mph (144-kph) fastball.

That could translate into one fewer earned run every other game.

"That is enough to have a meaningful effect on the success of a pitcher, but it is not nearly as dramatic as the effects on home run production," Tobin said.

"The unusual sensitivity of home run production to bat speed results in much more dramatic effects, and focuses attention disproportionately on the hitters."

Tobin said it is possible that baseball players could gain the muscle mass by lifting weights.

"This doesn't prove anything. This is not an indictment of Barry Bonds or anybody else," he said.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

"Tobin said it is possible that baseball players could gain the muscle mass by lifting weights.

"This doesn't prove anything. This is not an indictment of Barry Bonds or anybody else."


...

In other words ... "Never Mind".

Must be a slow news week.

Weight lifting and strength training can make ballplayers stronger and they can hit more home runs!

Stop the presses!

[redoct11]

"Tobin said it is possible that baseball players could gain the muscle mass by lifting weights.

"This doesn't prove anything. This is not an indictment of Barry Bonds or anybody else."


...

In other words ... "Never Mind".

Must be a slow news week.

Weight lifting and strength training can make ballplayers stronger and they can hit more home runs!

Stop the presses!

The results of his study seem pretty solid to me. He was just being intellectually honest by saying weight training can increase muscle mass too. This does not, however, discredit his overall study.

[Old Sweater]

He calculated that a 10 percent increase in muscle mass should increase the speed of a thrown ball by about 5 percent, or 4 to 5 mph (6.4 to 8 kph) for a pitcher who throws a 90-mph (144-kph) fastball.


Is there a link to this or any of the other BS with proof instead of theory?.....LOL

Biggest benefit of using steroids for pitchers is recovery time. The 3-5% gain in velocity is the max for a pitcher and how they chose to get it. If you reach the max by mechanics and technique, a shot of steroids isn't going do nothing but help the pitcher in recovery time between starts. The clown that wrote this is a few years behind in the same theory others have wrote.

[Old Sweater]

The results of his study seem pretty solid to me. He was just being intellectually honest by saying weight training can increase muscle mass too. This does not, however, discredit his overall study.

Not to me. If there was a 50% increase in HR's by use of steroids there would have been 80 HR seasons in the 70's, 80's and 90's. You can type baseball and steroids in google search and find out this Tobin is beating an old horse. Nothing new in his research except a 45% BS increase in HR power. This Tobin must smoke when he works or writes.

[PVNICK]

Is there a link to this or any of the other BS with proof instead of theory?.....LOL

Biggest benefit of using steroids for pitchers is recovery time. The 3-5% gain in velocity is the max for a pitcher and how they chose to get it. If you reach the max by mechanics and technique, a shot of steroids isn't going do nothing but help the pitcher in recovery time between starts. The clown that wrote this is a few years behind in the same theory others have wrote.

So how do you explain the track sprinters results after steroids? The study is nothing new but neither is your spin.

[Old Sweater]

So how do you explain the track sprinters results after steroids? The study is nothing new but neither is your spin.

Like I said type baseball and steroids in google search and there is even articles that explain about the sprinters.

How can a spin be different on the same old BS.

[Zagi-CRO]

Is it something new for us?
Chinese, ex-Soviet Union, ex-german,many American players etc. etc...
have used steroids... and so what ?

[PVNICK]

There was some "bust" out in Jersey yesterday so I'm sure with that and the Floyd Landis Tour de France news all this stuff wil be back out for public consumption.

[Old Sweater]

Is it something new for us?
Chinese, ex-Soviet Union, ex-german,many American players etc. etc...
have used steroids... and so what ?

*gasp* really?..............lol

[brett]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Steroids can help batters hit 50 percent more home runs by boosting their muscle mass by just 10 percent, a U.S. physicist said on Thursday.



The study does seem to show that the home run record would have been crushed by now without steroids. A 10% increase in muscle mass can be accomplished naturally in 6 months by some one who starts working out properly. I have known natural athletes who increase their muscle mass by 25% in one year.

[PVNICK]

The study does seem to show that the home run record would have been crushed by now without steroids. A 10% increase in muscle mass can be accomplished naturally in 6 months by some one who starts working out properly. I have known natural athletes who increase their muscle mass by 25% in one year. 25% seems extraordinary. What are the numbers?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Where did Matt Lawton go wrong?

[redoct11]

Not to me. If there was a 50% increase in HR's by use of steroids there would have been 80 HR seasons in the 70's, 80's and 90's. You can type baseball and steroids in google search and find out this Tobin is beating an old horse. Nothing new in his research except a 45% BS increase in HR power. This Tobin must smoke when he works or writes.


Barry Bonds HR Percentage Increase:

1999-2000: 44.1%
2000-2001: 48.9%

Sammy Sosa HR Percentage Increase:

1997-1998: 83.3%

You seem to have hyperbolized the home run increase in order to discredit his work.

[brett]

25% seems extraordinary. What are the numbers?

Someone at 180 pounds and 15% bodyfat would have 153 "lean" pounds but only about half of that would be muscle (or 76.5 pounds). 25% of 76.5 would be 22 pounds. That is unusual to be sure, but since age 26 I've added about 27 pounds of muscle which is about 40% of my total muscle mass (and 20% of my lean mass) at age 26.

At 26 I was about 170 with 140 pounds lean (about 70 muscle estimated) and at 36 I am 210 with 170 lean.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay guys for starters this was a press release about an upcoming study that is going to be published. So you really can't say the results of study look this or that. The researcher makes a lot of assumptions. We don't know if they are sound assumptions or not until the paper is published. But for me standing off on the sideline this simply looks like a lot of theoretical baloney. It sounds more like "hey lets say that steroids do this, if steroids does that what would happen?" not like "Okay after research we have discovered that steroids do this, which causes this, which produces that"

This research sound more like a thought exorcise then actual real research.

[Ubiquitous]

Barry Bonds HR Percentage Increase:

1999-2000: 44.1%
2000-2001: 48.9%

Sammy Sosa HR Percentage Increase:

1997-1998: 83.3%

You seem to have hyperbolized the home run increase in order to discredit his work.

Barry Bonds in 1999 played 102 games. In 2000 he played 143 and in 2001 he plated 153 games.

In 1997 Sammy Sosa had one of the worst years if not the worst year as a full time player up to that point. Compare 1996 to 1998 and you don't get those dramatic of a %.

[Ubiquitous]

Here is the actual study. (http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/TobinAJP.pdf)

[redoct11]

Barry Bonds in 1999 played 102 games. In 2000 he played 143 and in 2001 he plated 153 games.

In 1997 Sammy Sosa had one of the worst years if not the worst year as a full time player up to that point. Compare 1996 to 1998 and you don't get those dramatic of a %.

It's still fairly dramatic. It still comes out to a 65% increase. So what's your point?

[redoct11]

Here is the actual study. (http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/TobinAJP.pdf)

It turns out I believe that he is making his assumptions about increases in home runs based on the top home run hitters of each year and not the league as a whole.

The only problem is is we don't know for sure which players actually took steroids and during what period of time. If we knew this information we could actually look at the player's data to determine the actual home run percentage increase.

[Ubiquitous]

The only problem is is we don't know for sure which players actually took steroids and during what period of time. If we knew this information we could actually look at the player's data to determine the actual home run percentage increase.

No you couldn't because again other factors are in play. Ballparks changed, weather changed, quite possibly the ball changed, it ignores increase in skill level as a player matures, and finally it ignores an actual increase in working out.

[PVNICK]

Okay guys for starters this was a press release about an upcoming study that is going to be published. So you really can't say the results of study look this or that. The researcher makes a lot of assumptions. We don't know if they are sound assumptions or not until the paper is published. But for me standing off on the sideline this simply looks like a lot of theoretical baloney. It sounds more like "hey lets say that steroids do this, if steroids does that what would happen?" not like "Okay after research we have discovered that steroids do this, which causes this, which produces that"

This research sound more like a thought exorcise then actual real research. In read/skimming the article it sounds as you have described. Some numbers on strength gain over a period of time, a conservative arbitrary percentage, some advanced math and Viola the quoted 50%. High tech bar room stool talk.

[redoct11]

No you couldn't because again other factors are in play. Ballparks changed, weather changed, quite possibly the ball changed, it ignores increase in skill level as a player matures, and finally it ignores an actual increase in working out.

That's true. If clean players were willing to sacrifice themselves, they could conduct an experiment in a simulated environment where the dimensions are neutral, and weather conditions are controlled. A pitching machine could gun major league simulated fastballs to each of these players before they take steroids, and then after they take steroids. That's the only way we could know is if clean players were willing to sacrifice themselves in a controlled experiment.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I always knew Maris was on 'roids. Hell, he went from 39 to 61 HR in one year!

Also, George Foster is suspect.


You guys are funny. The physicist acknowledges that strength training can result in muscle increase! Of course, that doesn't make a sexy headline, but oh well.

[redoct11]

I always knew Maris was on 'roids. Hell, he went from 39 to 61 HR in one year!

Also, George Foster is suspect.


You guys are funny. The physicist acknowledges that strength training can result in muscle increase! Of course, that doesn't make a sexy headline, but oh well.

But he went from 61 to 33 the following season and never cracked 40 home runs again. Doesn't that seem a little suspicious to you?

[brett]

Look, the point of the article still is valuable. A little muscle can make the difference in a lot of home runs. It also shows that if player's had just added 10% muscle mass naturally, it could account for all of the increase in HRs. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it should have and could have happened even without steroids.

[Ubiquitous]

Except he didn't prove anything even in regards to increase muscle mass leads to increased home runs. He made an assumption that 10% increase in muscle mass leads to 10% increase in power. That isn't really true. Not every single muscle that gets bigger is going to lead to a straight increase in power, and I also seriously doubt that even the muscles one needs for baseball have a straight relationship with power.