Ok Kevin, I’ve been doing some thinking and I’m willing to modify my stance a little. While muscle mass will not increase batspeed and therefore not increase the V in the F=mv equation for force production, weight transfer from the back to front leg could make a difference in the m (mass) portion of the equation, so someone with an equal amount of batspeed will produce more force if there weight transfer (mass) is greater. So I can see how being heavier can influence power in baseball to a degree. 25 lbs when your 38… I’d like to gain that and I’m 25! I think we all know what was involved in that weight gain. Good or bad, its reality.
I dont want to nitpick but F=ma.
Goldberg is right. Momentum=MV. In case of an impact between a bat and a ball, the impulse is probably more important. Impulse=Fdt. If we can say that the bat being held by a more massive batter deflects less, then we can conclude that the ball stays on the back just a tad longer, making the dt portion larger. If the force is assumed to be the same (it will be actually be larger), then the ball will travel farther.
I dont know if this has any bearing but here goes. On Ray DeMarinis website he talked about bat speed. He said the biggest difference is seen when you look at bat speed immediately after contact. Stronger hitters show a smaller decline in bat speed. He talked about this guy who was huge and strong as shit. He said his bat speed before contact was 95mph. After contact it dropped to 88mph. Demarinis bat speed was also 95mph but dropped to 56mph. Bigger guys bat slowed down less so he was able to hit the ball farther. At least thats Demarinis theory.
Damn guys, I only got a “B” in physics but the stuff you’re coming up with is crazy. First of all: the equation is Force=massxacceleration (f=ma). In this case (the bat hitting the ball) the force we are primarily concerned with is the force of the bat on the ball-more bat force=ball goes farther. The mass referres to the mass of the bat and acceleration to the acceleration of the bat. So in order to create more force with your bat you need to one create more acceleration (swing the bat faster, in this case) or increase the bat mass.* Yes, momentum and intertia play in to the equation, but this is the basics. So how did Barry up the number of homers? While the 25 pounds has something to do with it (assuming he gained some strength) the overwhelming factor is how explosively he can swing the bat (yes, technique also plays a part-but assuming he’s in the big leagues his technique didn’t change to much from last year to this). In summary, this shows why athletes shouldn’t train with the tradional bodybuilder routine. Athletes need to focus on speed, acceleration, and functional strength (aka power).
*For the nit-pickers yes mass of the arms has a little to do with it, since they are part of the lever arm which the bat is part of, but they are relatively close to the fulcrium so their mass is of little difference.)
hey olympic athletes work their asses off, rebound from injuries, and make dramatic improvements and guess what? they use steroids, all the time, and if they make dramatic improvements at an age when they are past there prime, you can bet your ass that in all probability they’ve been using something, so i apply the same logic to bonds, especially since baseball dosen’t test for steroids…hey i applaud the guy for his hard work and dedication, but i think in all probability he’s been juicing, which is what a lot of ballplayers do, tc touched on the issue of steroids in baseball before, does this sound that farfetched to you?
Bonds’ swing didn’t change. But an alternative to the change in strength could be his ability to pick up on the ball. He may have just had alot more solid contact. May not sound like much, but if you’re having problems picking up on the ball out of a pitchers hand, you’ll most likely miss, or hit the top, or bottom of the ball. When you hit it dead in the center, it’s gone… Mayhaps it had somethin to do with his sight, or having Tony Gwynn as a great friend. Along with Willie Mays.
Who cares if he juiced. Most pro athletes are “on”. Like Charlie Francis said since the top people are taking performance enhancing drugs, not just juice, First is still first, second is second…All things are equal.
BTW Bonds did not gain 20lbs in one year. Matt Williams, former teammate, said that every year he showed up 4-5lbs heavier than previous season.
F=ma is pretty useless in analyzing collisions. Most studies of collions, depending on whether they are elastic or inelastic collisions use the impulse and momentum formulas. The conservation of kinetic energy is also useful in elastic collisions. In case of a baseball and a bat, it will not be perfectly elastic, so they probably will pick a coefficient of restitution determined empirically. Goldberg is correct. Peter J. Brancazio has written an analysis that proved that the balls speed depends on:
- energy imparted by the body and arms
- energy imparted by the wrist
- speed of pitch
- point of collision on the bat
- the weight of the bat.
Bottom line: the stength and mass of the batter’s arms DOES matter.
I think others have made my point about bonds. If he’d had the same number of at-bats as sosa he’d have hit 90 hr’s. Just to clarify the snide comments about steroid use but bonds has actually DROPPED weight this year after feeling he was too big and inflexible last year.
Reg, I didn’t realize that he dropped weight over the off-season. I thought that I read in an artcile that he weight 205 last year and is now 225. I don’t have a single thing against him using steroids b/c scores of professional athletes do it.
some points (and yes they will be all over the place;), bonds is a MUCH better all around REGULAR season player then anyone in the last 20 years, but what has he EVER done in the playoffs? the walk record is INCREDIBLE, the job of a offensive player is to score and drive in runs, doesn’t matter how he does it, he can be like ricky and walk,steel bases and score (and yes I know there is much more to rickys game then that, I consider him the second best regular season player to bonds, though MUCH better in the post season), he can be like mattingly used to be and hit some homeruns (about 30 a year) along with a bunch of doubles (about 40 a year) and be an exceptional base runner, etc… or he can do ALL of those things, like bonds does. to those that think the walk record is not important YOU HAVE TO BE ON BASE TO SCORE RUNS, did you know the last guy with an on base % over .500 was mantle? that is sick, you could bet even money every time bonds got up this season that he would reach base and at the end of the year you would be ahead! bonds did NOT have half as many at bats, yes he did it in less then mark (I am Mr. over rated) mcguire but it was more like 600 abs to 450 (about that, I am not looking it up). bonds is NOT a nice guy (though that is not his job), his team mates don’t like him (ask about the TV he had put in the club house that only HE can see) he is rude to the press, he is rude to the fans, he asked for a reduction in his child support because HE was spending too much money (realy, HE was spending too much money so for him to have the same standard of living he said his support should be lowered). a comment about the diff between Ruth’s days and today, YES the ball IS harder, yes there are more teems, but what some don’t remember is that it was an all white sport then, think of all the great athletes that Ruth never got to compete against (josh gibson comes to mind) but I don’t believe that the athletes today are so much stronger and faster (when mantle came up he was faster then ANYONE in the game today and when bonds or big mcfraud can hit a sand bag almost 600 feet (as Ruth and mantle did, Ruth actualy went OVER 600) I’ll believe they are as strong. so I don’t know if its the ball, the athletes or is it just that great athletes come along every once in awhile and do great things (though I think the strike zone and pitching coaches insane insistance that ALL pitchers throw low in the zone when there are almost nothing but low ball hitters in the game today has alot to do with the increase in home runs). I love when people pick #'s and use them the way they want, no bonds never hit 50 before this season but last year he did hit 49, come on, if he hit one more last year people would say “he never even hit 55 before”. if I remember correct Ruth went from 29 to 54, how do I know some guy in a delli was saying “he never even hit 40 before”? something about bat speed, the biggest reason for the decrease after contact is the follow thru, wriniak(sp?) proved it years ago, when full extention is reached (which big mcfraud talks about all the time now and is the diff in his swing now compared to when he came up) but speed thru the ball barely decreases at all, almost all hitters that reach full extention take there top hand off the bat on follow thru (exceptions are people like canseco, bagwell, piazza, etc…) not to go into all the details but swinging a 34 oz bat 100 mph then haveing to decelerate it is an incredibly violent thing to do, the body prepares for deceleration before contact is even made, full extention thru the ball delays the deceleration. anyway I am rambling WAY too much. just some of my thoughts. peace
If only the OP knew what we know now.
Just to add more to the “Barry Bonds is a dickhead” fire, in Japan I would often hang out with American baseball players playing in the Japanese league. You’d see them drinking at the bars after their games. Most of these guys were decent major league players at one point who for whatever reason couldn’t maintain a spot on the roster.
Anyway, met a guy playing for the Hiroshima Carp who used to play with Barry on the Giants. He asked Barry to sign a ball for his young son…Barry muttered “no autographs” and supposedly refused to even make eye contact with him after hearing the request. What a dick.
What’s with the million year-old threads that keep popping up? Are the mods just digging through the archives dredging up random stuff and throwing it on the ‘most popular’ list just to mess with us?
…or did you actually go and search for this?
[quote]Otep wrote:
What’s with the million year-old threads that keep popping up? Are the mods just digging through the archives dredging up random stuff and throwing it on the ‘most popular’ list just to mess with us?
…or did you actually go and search for this?[/quote]
I was browsing. It’s sunday, give me a break!
[quote]swissrugby67 wrote:
Otep wrote:
What’s with the million year-old threads that keep popping up? Are the mods just digging through the archives dredging up random stuff and throwing it on the ‘most popular’ list just to mess with us?
…or did you actually go and search for this?
I was browsing. It’s sunday, give me a break!
[/quote]
This thread is 8 years old. You don’t get a break for digging into ancient history just to respond with a “peanut gallery” comment. I could see if you had some profound statement to make…but that above ain’t it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This thread is 8 years old. You don’t get a break for digging into ancient history just to respond with a “peanut gallery” comment. I could see if you had some profound statement to make…but that above ain’t it.[/quote]
What struck me about this thread in particular was the fact that in 8 years nothing has really changed if you consider the contents of “our” posts.
Sure, there are many more people looking for validation when posting pics of 12 inch biceps or teens complaining how their gyms don’t cater for the “hardcore” and the good old days of “serious” training are over only to be replaced with guido’s and chai tea lattes … BUT!
-
People still have to find faults in great achievement. Heck, if someone cured Cancer and accepted a reward of 100’000 dollars then no doubt someone would dub him “a greedy pseudo-fraud acting against the true goals of science: a selfless eternal quest of knowledge that could better the lives of everyone” Then someone would claim it to be a conspiracy theory. We had the cure all along.
-
Everyone knows more about professional sport than the pros.
-
People claim to not care if X was juicing which invariably causes a massive debate on wether it’s cheating or not and sometimes ending in: the sporting world has gone to hell.
[quote]swissrugby67 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This thread is 8 years old. You don’t get a break for digging into ancient history just to respond with a “peanut gallery” comment. I could see if you had some profound statement to make…but that above ain’t it.
What struck me about this thread in particular was the fact that in 8 years nothing has really changed if you consider the contents of “our” posts.
Sure, there are many more people looking for validation when posting pics of 12 inch biceps or teens complaining how their gyms don’t cater for the “hardcore” and the good old days of “serious” training are over only to be replaced with guido’s and chai tea lattes … BUT!
-
People still have to find faults in great achievement. Heck, if someone cured Cancer and accepted a reward of 100’000 dollars then no doubt someone would dub him “a greedy pseudo-fraud acting against the true goals of science: a selfless eternal quest of knowledge that could better the lives of everyone” Then someone would claim it to be a conspiracy theory. We had the cure all along.
-
Everyone knows more about professional sport than the pros.
-
People claim to not care if X was juicing which invariably causes a massive debate on wether it’s cheating or not and sometimes ending in: the sporting world has gone to hell.
[/quote]
You should have done that the first time.
[quote]
You should have done that the first time.[/quote]
Ill make sure I’m not lazy next time.