12/21/24
September 26, 2007
HGH + The Clear = HR(50%): A Tufts physicist and baseball fan will publish an article in the upcoming issue of the American Journal of Physics detailing how a small increase in muscle mass could increase the amount of home runs a professional-baseball-level player would hit by over 50 percent.
I figured it had to be posted since the prevailing argument around these parts is the same as the players' argument: you still have to be able to hit. But if you step past that prerequisite, what exactly can juicing do is the heart of the matter.
posted by garfield at 10:01 AM on September 26, 2007
So many of those arguments are ridiculous, even when used in the context of generic steroids, since the primary benefit of steroids allows the user to heal faster from workouts, therefore training more productively. But HGH? That's some damned scary stuff. I mean, the rumours say that it even improves eyesight.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:14 AM on September 26, 2007
Here's more on it. From BBTF. "These results certainly do not prove that recent performances are tainted, but they suggest that some suspicion is reasonable," he concludes. That's your conclusion? This just in: Science has officially declared that suspicion of steroid use in baseball is reasonable. In other news, Science thinks heterosexual men are attracted to beautiful women. Good to see you, Science. Unfortunately, we are out of booze and all that's left on the buffet table is some baklava. But, hey, we're glad you made it. It's going to be hard to seriously discuss an article that hasn't been published yet. It will not be hard, however, to kick and scream about how Bonds should only have 500 homers. So let's do that.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:15 AM on September 26, 2007
Good one, Crafty. This just in: Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls. Also, spit balls have a 90% chance of being sloppier than dry baseballs. Further, with the aid of bionic transplants, ballplayers may be able to run faster, see further, hear better, and be stronger than those without such aids. At least, it is suspected. But steroids are wrong. Stay off the juice, kids.
posted by THX-1138 at 11:38 AM on September 26, 2007
This just in, 81.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
posted by Debo270 at 11:45 AM on September 26, 2007
Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls No, they've explicitly said the opposite, though Robert Adair did suggest it might improve average.
posted by yerfatma at 12:04 PM on September 26, 2007
This just in, 81.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. I thought it was 81.8%?
posted by BornIcon at 12:04 PM on September 26, 2007
Since we're mincing numbers, I think the thread title should be: HGH + The Clear = HR(150%). ..though I could see the logic in saying: HGH + The Clear = HR(50%) ...only if there was a starting formula stating: [unmodified hitting] = HR(100%) ...however, that corollary formula, taken on its own, would be confusing without an in-depth explanation of terms and purpose. I could easily see a fan walking away thinking, "unmodified hitting leads to a homer at every at-bat? That's crazy." So, in the interests of that fan, I think HGH + The Clear = HR(150%) ...is best.
posted by Hugh Janus at 12:15 PM on September 26, 2007
yeah what hugh said. BI, allow 32% for error.
posted by Debo270 at 12:29 PM on September 26, 2007
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli
posted by irunfromclones at 12:31 PM on September 26, 2007
Pffft. You can use statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:12 PM on September 26, 2007
USA Today has come out with a new survey: Apparently three out of four people make up 75 percent of the population.
posted by Debo270 at 01:13 PM on September 26, 2007
Statistics are more fun when they're illustrated by a jaunty cartoonish graph, aren't they? BTW, what was the margin for error in that USA today study?
posted by tahoemoj at 01:37 PM on September 26, 2007
increased muscle mass could also be obtained through legitimate means such as weightlifting I knew it. Every athlete is a frakking cheater. Make them all drink beer and watch TV like the rest of us. Then see what they can do. I would be interested in seeing how the physicist justifies his numbers. The story appears to indicate the following: 10 percent greater muscle mass = 5 percent greater bat speed = 4 percent greater ball off bat speed = 50 percent more homeruns. Makes my head spin. Make it stop.
posted by graymatters at 02:31 PM on September 26, 2007
Hugh Janus sighting! I love those.
posted by yerfatma at 02:34 PM on September 26, 2007
It can be conclusively proven that Science is hazardous to one's health. After all, 100% of the scientists who were working in their respective fields 100 years ago are now dead.
posted by Howard_T at 04:28 PM on September 26, 2007
Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls No, they've explicitly said the opposite, though Robert Adair did suggest it might improve average. The Mythbusters guys put some baseball myths to the test and one of them was the corked bat myth. Their tests showed that the ball went further off of a non-corked bat.
posted by NoMich at 06:24 PM on September 26, 2007
the Wired article: "But then, how to explain the explosion of home run hitting from about 1995 onward?" the Tufts press release: "In the 1990s, home run totals skyrocketed to historic levels, notably dropping off after steroid testing was instituted in 2003." Somebody show me this "explosion" and then I'd especially like to see the "notably dropping off." (Here's a picture to help you out). the physicist: "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." Oh, for fuck's sake, you call yourself a scientist? Show me the baseball player who's doing the equivalent of running 100m in 6 seconds.
posted by Amateur at 09:38 PM on September 26, 2007
Their tests showed that the ball went further off of a non-corked bat. F = ma
posted by yerfatma at 09:53 PM on September 26, 2007
Awesome. I got two people to call me out on the made-up facts of my joke. Scientists have proven that 104.07% of all SportsFilter regulars think that I am a twit. And an unfunny one to boot.
posted by THX-1138 at 11:11 PM on September 26, 2007
the physicist: "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." I agree with Amateur. When I trained as a physicist, we covered quite a bit of stats - where did this guy get his degree from? F = ma When a bat and a ball collide, it's actually more about conservation of momentum...* *and elasticity of the ball, impetus, dissipation of energy (friction) and a host of other variables, but I get your point.
posted by owlhouse at 11:14 PM on September 26, 2007
Y=RFA+MA Finally, I have solved the Theory of Regularity.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:57 AM on September 27, 2007
Fibre does that for me.
posted by owlhouse at 01:07 AM on September 27, 2007
Y=RFA+MA Pretty slick.
posted by THX-1138 at 12:01 PM on September 27, 2007
Pretty slick. Not funny. You twit. Also, how does one batten a hatch? And does HGH help you batten?
posted by SummersEve at 12:10 PM on September 27, 2007
You place the batten through the cleats or whatever on either side of the hatch. I'm rolling straight humorless through this thread. Recognize.
posted by yerfatma at 12:38 PM on September 27, 2007
Bonds should really only have about 500 homers.
posted by vito90 at 01:21 PM on September 27, 2007
Not funny. You twit. You right. My bad.
posted by THX-1138 at 05:24 PM on September 27, 2007
Well, this should be interesting. /battens down hatches