Options
Physicist shows how steroids can fuel home runs
stevek
Posts: 27,774 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Physicist shows how steroids can fuel home runs
By Maggie Fox
Thu Sep 20, 4:31 PM ET
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 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 for a pitcher who throws a 90-mph 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.
By Maggie Fox
Thu Sep 20, 4:31 PM ET
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 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 for a pitcher who throws a 90-mph 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.
0
Comments
<< <i>
"This doesn't prove anything. This is not an indictment of Barry Bonds or anybody else," he said. >>
<< <i>It was proven conclusively that steroids could help sports performance 50 years ago >>
All steroids do is help one recover from workouts quicker. There has been no definitive proof that steroid use helps someone hit a baseball further or more home runs.
Puh-lease, would someone take some Bean-o !.
<< <i>Interesting story stevek, but is anyone actually surprised by these findings? >>
Not surprised by the findings but I thought the "precise" calculations were interesting, even though I'm far from totally believing the precise calculations until there are other physicists drawing the same conclusion.
Steroids turn players from warning track power into 30 HR's/Yr power, it also turns players from 30 HR's/Yr power to 60 HR's/Yr (or more) power.
Oh, and by the way, Axtell, go away.
<< <i>This doesn't prove anything. >>
Steroids are not going to turn a guy who hits 30 HRs into a guy hitting 40, or 50, let alone 60.
So if a guy works out through the offseason, adds 10 lbs of muscle, he's going to double his home run production? No, of course not. But reading the outlandish claims from this report, you'd think otherwise. There are plenty of ways to add that muscle, steroids is one of them, but not the only way. The physicist fails to take these other methods of muscle gain into account and knows that by saying 'steroids will double your home run production!' he'll get press. Mission accomplished.
Also, if HR production truly were doubled, wouldn't we see a HUGE increase in the number of guys hitting 50, 60, 70 HRs? If it were true then yes, but it's not true.
<< <i><<Steroids are not going to turn a guy who hits 30 HRs into a guy hitting 40, or 50, let alone 60.>>
That is your opinion and your in the clear minority. Think for a second and ask yourself why the Olympics is so vigilant about testing for steroids. It has so many competitions that are based on strength, speed and endurance. Is it just your opinion that they're all wasting their time? There is plenty of evidence in baseball to indicate that what you said can't happened, is EXACTLY what has happened. >>
Hitting a baseball is not a competition based on strength, speed, and endurance. It's a sport based on hand eye coordination and reflex ability.
There's 'plenty of evidence' that there are guys who are doubling their HR totals and are doing so over a prolonged period of time? No there's not, if there were we'd see it.
If that's the case, if your belief is that steroids give you more power thereby contributing to higher batting averages, then SURELY Jeter was juicing last year when he hit over .30 points better than his career average and had nearly a similar sized increase in his SLG. The numbers don't lie, right? Those balls that normally would have been caught for outs he was driving them much further and hitting for a lot more power...so he MUST have been juicing.
<< <i><<a HUGE increase in the number of guys hitting 50, 60, 70 HRs>>
Where the hell have you been the past few years. The top 6 single season HR "performances" of ALL TIME happened within the 4 year span from 1998-2001. Statisticians would come up with crazy one in a trillion type odds to explain such an anomaly. >>
How about the drastic reduction in the size of ballparks? The dilution of pitching due to 5 man rotations and 32 teams? What about the increased knowledge of weight training and nutrition? Throw in the fact that these 6 performances were done by 3 men (hardly a ringing indictment of the era) and you have no argument.
Brady Anderson career high in HR's 21 HR's; then in 1996 - 50 - highest season after that - 24
Louis Gonzalez career high in HR's 31 HR's; then in 2001 - 57- highest season after that - 28
Barry Bonds career high in HR's 49; then in 2001 - 73 (at age 37 mind you) - highest season since - 46
It goes without saying, performance enhancing drugs enhance performance.
Surely Roger Maris was juicing in 1961 when he 61 home runs...when his previous high was 39 and he never hit more than 33 again.
Surely Hank Greenberg was juicing in 1938 when he hit 58 home runs...when the most he'd hit after that was 44.
Surely Hack Wilson was juicing in 1930 when he hit 56 home runs at age 30...when his previous best was 39 and he wouldn't top 23 again.
You can go through history and find countless one year aberrations like the ones mentioned...it doesn't mean (a) they were using steroids and (b) doesn't mean that steroids provide any real, substantial HR power.
<< <i>
What does that have anything to do with HRs? The reason the BA increase is because the balls that would otherwise stop around the warning track are going over the fence. They are leaving the field of play hence there is no chance for making a play on the ball.
>>
If using steroids is making a guy stronger and increasing his bat speed (which is what the original article referenced as the reason guys hit more home runs) then it stands that the increased bat speed would result in more base hits through the infield that they would normally be able to make plays on, and that what would normally be outs are instead base hits. More power from steroids then wouldn't just be an increase in home runs - it would result in a substantial increase in batting averages.
<< <i>You can pick examples throughout history of all sorts of abberations. However, the concentration that exists around the few years in the late 90s and earlier this decade cannot be ignored. Randomness like you've mentioned is not surprising at all and I would expect it to happen for all sorts of reasons. Yet, the strage numbers that happened in a cluster during the "steroid era" (by your own words), is well beyond the expected "outliers" that any statistician would expect. >>
They are called aberrations for a reason. Throw in that you simply have more hitters now than when there were fewer number of teams and you will have more players with more of these aberrations. No one is denying that players used steroids; what is being denied is that steroids and their use give you any more HR hitting ability.
The 'strange' numbers you refer to have happened in an era of 24 hour news and talk radio cycles that are constantly pushing to find some sort of controversial story. A simple look at the numbers would reveal historical one year aberrations that mirror those of the so-called 'steroid' era.
<< <i>So then if that is your take, then Landis won the Tour de France legitimately.? Ben Johnson won the 100M dash in 88? Basically steroids just doesn't help at all? Am I getting your position correctly? Cause frankly, I'm not here to change your opinion, if that is the way you feel. Or is it just that it doesn't help baseball players? >>
When did I say it didn't help baseball players or athletes in general? You're letting your emotions overtake you and not looking at my point. Of course steroids help you, they help you recover from workouts faster and help you last through the long baseball season. What it doesn't do (and has never been proven to do) is to help generate more power to hit more home runs.
When did I say Landis or Johnson did their feats legitimately? I don't recall that? And I surely didn't say steroids don't help at all. I'd really appreciate you not putting words in my mouth because I sure as hell never said any of that.
Steroids do not, in my opinion, give a boost to home runs. Period. I don't know how many other ways I can say it and be any clearer. You are of the mind that a guy can take steroids and tack on 15 home runs more per year.
<< <i>BTW, what would be "proof" of it in your mind exactly? I don't see how any sort of "definitive" proof could EVER exist. Or for that matter, proof of anything if one wants to shut out the existing evidence to whatever degree they felt was needed. >>
What's your 'proof' that steroids *do* help? The burden of proof should be on the prosecution...its easy as hell to come out and say 'these guys juiced and it gave them 20 more home runs a year!' It sounds exciting, it grabs attention, but where is the proof?
There is none.
<< <i>There are PLENTY of position players who play 160 games or so. There are PLENTY of them who do it for well over a decade. This has been going on since FOREVER in baseball. There are also PLENTY of injuries at the beginning of the season and during the middle of the season. >>
Sure there are...but that doesn't refute that managers give many, many of their guys nights off, especially later in the season to reduce fatigue.
<< <i>As for "proof", once again, I'm not talking burden but what CONSTITUTES proof in your mind.
Here are FACTS related to steroids.
The ONLY years that he hit 60+ or 70+ HRs, he was juiced.
The ONLY year that Barry hit over 50 HRs, he was juiced.
The ONLY year that Caminiti says he juiced, he hit 40 when he had never hit more than 29. >>
So again, I'll bring up Roger Maris. 61 home runs in 1961, his previous high was 39. Juicer? Based on your loose argument, he must be. I mean how else can such a drastic (and unrepeated) burst of power be explained?
Neither has Sosa
Neither has McGwire.
Neither did Brady.
Neither did Gonzalez.
So of the 5 men who have been accused in this thread of using steroids as a means to achieve their home run totals, none have failed a steroid test. You can throw in all the accusations all you want, but until they are guilty, you don't get to use them to base your argument on.
Now, who are the players who have been busted? Most notably, of course, is Palmiero. Unless he was doing steroids for a decade, or, steroids don't give you noticeably more power. Any other baseball players who have had huge one year spikes then fallen off? What, no?
So by that very reasoning, it would tell us that steroids do not lend to more home runs.
You won't go into the Maris debate because it will destroy all your other theories that players like Brady Anderson *must* have juiced, instead of realizing that one year aberrations do occur.
Finally, its apparent to me that you don't feel the current crop of players 'measures up' to those of past eras - that's fine if it's your opinion, but to sit there in judgment and condemn them and say their records are phony when there is no medical evidence to back up that claim? Well that's just being petty.
Anyways I'm out of here, see ya.
All Steroids (bulking types like Decca or cutting types like Winstrol) do not get you stronger by themselves. What steroids do is allow you to get to the gym fully recovered and healed 66% faster then not talking them.
The implication is that if I benched on Monday it would take me until Thursday to bench again and gain from that workout. However with Anabolic Steroids (also lets not forget the LEGAL pro-hormones like sostonal and prostanzanol) I could Bench Monday and i could be ready to Bench fully healed by Wed. In theory I can get one more fully exploitable workout per week.
If you stack the Steroids with a Growth Hormone (like cadaver or *tropin) then after you workout your muscles will not only heal faster but stronger and bigger - of course providing you are workng out to a plan to maximize the "supplements" you are on.
However none of this makes you hit a baseball any better - you might generate more bat speed like the doctor said, but from working out a lot in my life I think most people get slower not faster when they get bigger and that has to be even more noticable when using a bulking agent (and that is what it would take to get from 195-235 lbs). While I think that steroids can help a one year surge (because your muscles will get stronger and quicker before they get bigger) they will undermine a long-term career. The unnatural weight wil cause back problems, knee problems not to mention side effects like: Liver damage, Heart rate issues, anger ....
Did Bonds take steroids and did those steroids help him - I would say if he took them it only "helped" him in one - two seasons at most. Although if you take account that steroids allows the body to recover quicker and stronger, Pitchers (no matter what that doctor said) clearly gains the advantage over the batter over a five year period assuming they are not lifting heavy weights.
The reason atheletes take steroids is because they can get one - two more workouts per week than those that don't.