namelesstavern.net

I find it hard to believe that the mass of an individual has anywhere near as much to do with how far they hit a baseball as strength does. Take a baseball player, and have them eat 15,000 calories a day until they add on 100 lbs of fat. That baseball player is now going to mass more than they used to, correct? Are they going to hit a baseball any further? Hell no. There is no reason why they would, and several reasons why they wouldn't.

Therefore, it cannot be a simple case of mass of the batter that has such an impact. Otherwise wearing lead underwear would make someone a better hitter, because their overall mass would be more than it would if they wore ordinary boxer shorts.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:I find it hard to believe that the mass of an individual has anywhere near as much to do with how far they hit a baseball as strength does. Take a baseball player, and have them eat 15,000 calories a day until they add on 100 lbs of fat. That baseball player is now going to mass more than they used to, correct? Are they going to hit a baseball any further? Hell no. There is no reason why they would, and several reasons why they wouldn't.
-Arlos

you're missing the point

if you gain mass, but still swing the bat at exactly the same speed, then you apply more force to the swing

chances are if you get fat, you're not swinging the bat as well

or look at it exactly the opposite way

cork a bat so that you can swing it faster

increased bat speed with same mass = more force, aka hit the ball further

same principle, just change the equation somewhere else

Except that the mass of the hypothetical fat baseball player is not in any way being applied to the baseball. Put him in lead pants, or some other method of increasing his central core mass. It is going to be irrelevant because that mass in no way impacts the baseball.

Look at it this way: Say I have a batting machine weighing 200 lbs that swings a bat of weight Y at velocity X. Given everything identical, the machine will hit those balls approximately Z distance, yes? Now, stack 800 pounds of lead bricks on top of the machine. It still swings the same bat of weight Y at the same velocity X, and given continued identical pitching, that machine will STILL hit a baseball that SAME Z distance. The mass of the machine has increased 5-fold. The distance the ball is hit will, however, be unaffected, because that mass in no way impacts the baseball. Same as for a baseball player who's core mass increases without some corresponding increase in STRENGTH (ie, the speed at which they swing the bat).

For mass, it is going to be the mass of the BAT that matters, not the mass of the player. Now, if someone gains enough strength from their increased musculature to either swing a bat 5% faster or swing a 5% heavier bat at the same speed they swung a lighter bat, then absolutely, the ball will go farther, no argument. But if they swing the same bat at the same speed, their core mass makes no difference.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote: Say I have a batting machine weighing 200 lbs that swings a bat of weight Y at velocity X. Given everything identical, the machine will hit those balls approximately Z distance, yes? Now, stack 800 pounds of lead bricks on top of the machine. It still swings the same bat of weight Y at the same velocity X, and given continued identical pitching, that machine will STILL hit a baseball that SAME Z distance.

that's a shitty example and you know it

it's as ridiculous as the lead pants


when you add muscle mass to a person, it doesn't sit as a lump in a non-moving portion of the body

take your dumb example, and now add even 50lbs to end of the arm holding the bat

make the bat swing exactly the same speed/motion as before, and Z will increase (the force applied by the bat to the ball will increase)