|
Post by kingdzbws on Aug 8, 2007 13:50:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 13:50:51 GMT -5
My post gets an A+.
We're talking about Math, Black&White, Binary concepts...not Balls-esque spin-doctoring.
There is no room for interpretation...it's either mathematically correct or mathematically incorrect. I was mathematically correct and you lost your job as the prof's TA/Grader for inaccurately assessing a valid mathematical equation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 13:52:26 GMT -5
"couldn't just say "Enhanced strength, bat speed..."?
Could have...but I didn't
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 13:52:43 GMT -5
The statement isn't exactly correct anyway. Strength doesn't lead to greater bat speed. If you have too much muscle, you could slow down.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Aug 8, 2007 13:54:28 GMT -5
Congrats Barry. Enjoy it while you can.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Aug 8, 2007 13:54:44 GMT -5
Well, you didn't, and look what discussion came of it. LOL
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 13:55:58 GMT -5
A D-
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:01:03 GMT -5
I disagree again Balls. Greater strength will never slow down bat speed. Greater mass may limit range of motion and that may hinder how hard someone hits a ball, but I think we'd have to be talking about a hell of a lot of mass before one's range of motion becomes that hampered. The point is Bonds...Barry Bonds is not limited in his range of motion...he is much stronger than he was before his steroid use, he's always been a solid hitter with a good eye, therefore the delta in his strength has turned a lot of what used to be fly balls in to home runs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:04:48 GMT -5
An poor assessment on my math skills coming from a guy who tried to spin a 30+ Home Run, 100+ RBI season as a "dismal failure" is almost complimentary!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Aug 8, 2007 14:05:50 GMT -5
The stregnth vs bat speed arguement is a tough one. I wonder if any real research has been done on it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 14:09:39 GMT -5
There's something called batting average that you seem to be failing to grasp. Anyone who hits .250 or less is a failure.
As for greater strength slowing down bat speed, you're wrong there too. Ask ARod, who suffered from it in 2006. He dropped 15 pounds of muscle, and welcome to 2007.
|
|
|
Post by bernie51williams on Aug 8, 2007 14:10:11 GMT -5
congrats to Bonds, and I think of him as the homerun king intill he's proven guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:14:51 GMT -5
Of course "real research" has been done on it. Although, it's not rocket science. The stronger you are, the harder you can swing a bat. The harder you swinger, the faster that bat travels through the path of the swing...period.
Obviously, swinging a bat hard (=fast) is not the only parameter involved in being a good hitter. I don't mean to imply that if I took steroids, I could go be a major league hitter. All it means is that I would strike out 500 times with greater force behind my swing. The issue here surrounds highly skilled athletes who already have a tremendous amount of innate ability (Barry Bonds knows how to look for pitches, tailor the mechanics of his swing, and put "good wood" on the ball regardless of steroids) all of a sudden now having a significant boost in strength (due to the steroids) to compliment their innate ability.
You've heard that saying that the difference between a home run and fly ball is something like an eighth of an inch...well, now that a guy is swinging the bat so much harder (faster) that margin of error is increased. Before the roids if a guy hit the ball with X-amount of bat speed and it travels 290 feet. After the roids, the guy hits the ball with X+Y amount of bat speed on the same spot on the bat as before and now the ball travels 310 feet.
(Disclaimer - those numbers are totally fictitious for the sake of argument...but it illustrates the physics behind greater bat speed)
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:16:24 GMT -5
"Anyone who hits .250 or less is a failure."
Good thing his average was .253. ZING!
.253 > .250
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:17:51 GMT -5
And if you bothered to take, oh I don't know AROD's own words for what they're worth, he said, in no uncertain terms, that he suffered from decrease RANGE OF MOTION!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 14:18:04 GMT -5
Over the course of the season, they may as well be =.
And after April 30, which represented 5/6 of the season, the guy hit about .220.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:19:23 GMT -5
"congrats to Bonds, and I think of him as the homerun king intill he's proven guilty."
I agree with this, by the way! My only caveat to that statement is that I am overwhelmingly convinced that eventually he WILL BE proven guilty, and at that time I will revoke that consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:25:30 GMT -5
"Over the course of the season, they may as well be =."
I wonder if Mickey Mantle thought 3 points "may as well be equal"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 14:37:30 GMT -5
Over the course of a career, it was. But it definitely annoyed him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:41:26 GMT -5
Just as I'm sure Giambi's .253 average that year must be annoying to you in your constant efforts to paint him as a "sub .250 hitter"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Aug 8, 2007 14:45:22 GMT -5
Not really. He had a good month of April that year. Similar this year. He couldn't even hit .200 in May. He's shit and there's a reason he's now having trouble cracking the lineup.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 8, 2007 14:47:36 GMT -5
That baseball card is FUCKING OUTSTANDING!
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Aug 8, 2007 15:01:37 GMT -5
What baseball card?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 2, 2007 7:48:32 GMT -5
Good for Barry on this one - he said he would never step foot in or around the Hall of Fame if they display that stupid ball with the asterisk on it. Sure, its petulant, but the fact that the Hall would choose to display the ball (even if the asterisk if facing the wall and cant be seen) is boggling to me. Cause there they are becoming part of the story.
His power play will work - the Hall will cave, and if that ball is donated it will sit down in the storage area, never to be seen.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 2, 2007 7:55:09 GMT -5
Fuck Bonds. He's a cheater, and I'm glad his ball is being marked up. I would stamp that asterisk all over the ball so that it can't be hidden. The fact that this upsets him makes me very happy.
But what stinks is that baseball and the HOF are filled with pussies who won't say, "tough shit cheater." He DESERVES to be ridiculed for cheating his way into the record books.
I laugh at his anger.
But the HOF may need to be careful, since they don't want to fall victim to his roid rage. But then again, he may get cancer and die before he reaches the Hall anyway, so it may be moot.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Nov 2, 2007 10:59:38 GMT -5
The Hall of Fame induction ceremony just wouldn't be the same wtihout what I'm sure will be an emotional, heart-warming speech from Mr. Personality himself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 2, 2007 15:25:02 GMT -5
Just have Tony Gwynn wear a Bonds mask - no one will know the difference.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Nov 2, 2007 17:19:15 GMT -5
Or, they can wait until after he gives his speech to display it.
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Nov 4, 2007 9:28:32 GMT -5
I don't believe the HOF ever said the museum would display it.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 4, 2007 23:24:41 GMT -5
I actually read a quote when the whole imbroglio was unfolding with what to do with the ball from a Hall "spokesman" and he said they would indeed accept the ball if it was offered to them, asterisk or no. While he did not say necessarily it would be displayed, he also did not make a point of saying they would not display it if marked.
Pretty much he said no matter what was added on it, the ball is the ball.
|
|