namelesstavern.net

You don't have to love it to know the mechanics of it.

baseball is performed in very short bursts of energy. Throwing a pitch. Hitting a ball. Throwing the ball from the outfield.

You don't need endurance, you just need to be strong.

You're talking a lot Xaivs, but you are telling me how I'm wrong.

Lyion, Hockey requires a lot more finesse than baseball. Unless you're a goon. Than I hate you and you shouldn't be ruining my game.

Speed, agility, and strength are all important in Hockey, and its arguable that it requires more skill to shoot a slapshot than to hit a 95 mph fastball. Hockey is more 'pure' atheletic than baseball which is more skill, and why roids would benefit it more.

Zanchief wrote:You don't have to love it to know the mechanics of it.

A functional knowledge of the game would be beneficial though.

baseball is performed in very short bursts of energy. Throwing a pitch. Hitting a ball. Throwing the ball from the outfield.

You don't need endurance, you just need to be strong.

A great many athletes fit that profile better than baseball players. The repetition of burst activity for three hours a night, 162 nights a year definitely requires endurance, and the stresses are cumulative. This is actually where steroids are beneficial to a baseball player. You're arguing your case from entirely the wrong angle.

More than strength, technique and explosiveness contribute to success in baseball. The former does not benefit from steroids in the least, and their impact on the latter is nowhere near as great as many outsiders believe, based largely on media hokum. Witness such immortals as Steve Balboni or Jeffery Leonard.

That just isn't true, Xao. Although Steroids do help with nagging injuries as you put it, the true benefit is increasing the ability to workout. That’s why you can amass a lot of muscle mass because you can sustain your training at a higher level for a longer amount of time.

You may be able to train to be stronger but you simply can't spend time in a gym to increase your agility or athleticism, factors that are minimal in baseball.

You seem to be assuming facts on poor data, Xao. Maybe these dudes you keep citing as supposedly poor journalists, whom I've never heard, might be the ones who are right, since you aren’t.

Zanchief wrote:That just isn't true, Xao. Although Steroids do help with nagging injuries as you put it, the true benefit is increasing the ability to workout. That’s why you can amass a lot of muscle mass because you can sustain your training at a higher level for a longer amount of time.

You may be able to train to be stronger but you simply can't spend time in a gym to increase your agility or athleticism, factors that are minimal in baseball.

The point you're assuming is that simply adding muscle mass will improve your performance on a diamond significantly. It won't. Hell, NBA players benefit more from strength training than do baseball players. Being bigger and stronger than the other guys on the court is a monstrous advantage. What's the number one knock on rookie big men? "Doesn't have an NBA body yet." "Needs to add muscle." "Not enough upper body strength."

You can definitely work out to improve both agility and athleticism, it just doesn't involve pushing iron all the time.

You seem to be assuming facts on poor data, Xao. Maybe these dudes you keep citing as supposedly poor journalists, whom I've never heard, might be the ones who are right, since you aren’t.

EDIT: Whoops, misread that last paragraph and posted some very competent journalists who agreed with me (Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons).

Skip Bayless? Right? I haven't seen an apocalypse yet, so we can safely assume that isn't true.

xaoshaen wrote:The point you're assuming is that simply adding muscle mass will improve your performance on a diamond significantly. It won't. Hell, NBA players benefit more from strength training than do baseball players. Being bigger and stronger than the other guys on the court is a monstrous advantage. What's the number one knock on rookie big men? "Doesn't have an NBA body yet." "Needs to add muscle." "Not enough upper body strength."

I'm starting to think you don't have "A functional knowledge of the game", if you truly think strength has a bigger baring on basketball than baseball when all a player has to do(and I know I'm oversimplifying to a degree) is hit a ball as hard as he can. He needs far less precision than basketball, just brute strength.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree, Xao.

Zanchief wrote:I'm starting to think you don't have "A functional knowledge of the game", if you truly think strength has a bigger baring on basketball than baseball when all a player has to do(and I know I'm oversimplifying to a degree) is hit a ball as hard as he can. He needs far less precision than basketball, just brute strength.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree, Xao.

Hitting a baseball is absolutely not about brute strength. It's far, far more important to hit the ball true than it is to swing hard.

If you think strength plays less of a role in a non-contact sport than in a contact sport you're kidding yourself. Are you truly going to contend that the most dominant man in the last decade of basketball relies on precision? The man can barely hit half his free throws, and you're going to attempt to convince me that he gets by on precision instead of strength? Have you seen your average MLB player compared to an NBA player? One of them is significantly stronger than the other, due to the demands of the sport. It's not the baseball player...

But the NBA player is an athlete. The baseball player is often an overweight slob. And for every Shaq there's a Jerome James or a Jahidi White.

Zanchief wrote:But the NBA player is an athlete. The baseball player is often an overweight slob. And for every Shaq there's a Jerome James or a Jahidi White.

The NBA still demands more brute strength from its players than does MLB. Even the overweight players, like James, are going to be monsters compared to the MLB equivalent, say, Lenny Dykstra.

We're getting off track. A baseball players physical build, especially a big hitter, is benefited more from steroids than most other popular sports. That's what I'm saying. You can argue all you want, that simply is not gonna change the fact that it's true.

Zanchief wrote:We're getting off track. A baseball players physical build, especially a big hitter, is benefited more from steroids than most other popular sports. That's what I'm saying. You can argue all you want, that simply is not gonna change the fact that it's true.

We're not off track at all. You're arguing that packing on muscle mass helps improve baseball performance. I'm pointing out that the evidence doesn't bear that out. Many other sports, including basketball, force their athletes to put on far more muscle mass than baseball players in order to remain competitive. The implication is clear: baseball players benefit far less from increased muscle mass than do athletes like basketball players.

Why then if all a baseball player needs is a fast swing, do all the big hitters look like rejects from a cheap Conan the barbarian TV show?

Why is it that most of the best basketball players, even in the post, look far less bulky? Because even centers need agility. Shaq is a seperate issue although I still think he is fairly agile for his size. Me and snero argue about this all the time.

The drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an NBA body.

Except steroids do FAR more than just bulk muscle mass. Bulk muscle mass does ZERO for track and field athletes, especially runners, yet those are some of the biggest abusers. Steroids help overall athletic performance. By your own admission baseball requires less overall athletic performance than does basketball, so shouldn't steroids have a greater impact where it IS important?

That said, the single sport where steroids would have the greatest impact is, inarguably, the NFL.

-Arlos

Zanchief wrote:Why then if all a baseball player needs is a fast swing, do all the big hitters look like rejects from a cheap Conan the barbarian TV show?

Heh, did you ever see Junior in his prime? Six-three, 195-205 pounds, he was the best player in baseball. How about Alex Rodriguez? Maybe Edgar Martinez, one of the best hitters of his era? Albert Pujols? Vladimir Guerrero?

Why is it that most of the best basketball players, even in the post, look far less bulky? Because even centers need agility. Shaq is a seperate issue although I still think he is fairly agile for his size. Me and snero argue about this all the time.

I'd tend to agree with you about Shaq. He's remarkably quick for a man of his size, but he does tend to simply overpower people, particularly these last few years as he's slowed down due to some combination of age and girth. It's fairly clear that you have absolutely no clue what baseball players look like though. There are a few very large men that play the game, but they're the statistical outliers that exist in every profession.

The drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an NBA body.

Drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an MLB body either.

Arlos wrote:Except steroids do FAR more than just bulk muscle mass. Bulk muscle mass does ZERO for track and field athletes, especially runners, yet those are some of the biggest abusers. Steroids help overall athletic performance. By your own admission baseball requires less overall athletic performance than does basketball, so shouldn't steroids have a greater impact where it IS important?

That said, the single sport where steroids would have the greatest impact is, inarguably, the NFL.

-Arlos

Win.

I could be wrong but i was in the impression that a lot of the players in the NHL were already under drug testing because they participated in the olympics. The NHL as a whole didn't have much of a testing policy but they do participate in the olympics. It's also pretty generally thought that steroids isn't a problem in the NHL, it's more common to have problems with stimulants and alcohol

xaoshaen wrote:Drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an MLB body either.

The fatties I see on TV seem to be doing pretty well.

Yes, because skating around an ice rink and shooting a puck is much more athletic than playing the outfield and covering all that ground out their. Watch Andruw Jones sometime and then tell me baseball players are not athletic.

Tadpole wrote:Yes, because skating around an ice rink and shooting a puck is much more athletic than playing the outfield and covering all that ground out their.

I'm glad we agree.

Zanchief wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:Drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an MLB body either.

The fatties I see on TV seem to be doing pretty well.

Being overweight is a sign of steroid abuse in a professional athlete?

xaoshaen wrote:

Zanchief wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:Drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an MLB body either.

The fatties I see on TV seem to be doing pretty well.

Being overweight is a sign of steroid abuse in a professional athlete?

Drastic weight gain does make an MLB body, was my insinuation.

The average MLB player is smaller than hockey players i would bet.

Zanchief wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:

Zanchief wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:Drastic weight gain from steroid abuse does not make an MLB body either.

The fatties I see on TV seem to be doing pretty well.

Being overweight is a sign of steroid abuse in a professional athlete?

Drastic weight gain does does make an MLB body

Drastic weight gain from steroids is not reflected in waist size increments...

Its reflected by neck size reduction.