Jump to content

Sessh

Limited Posting Member
  • Content Count

    3,260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Sessh last won the day on April 23 2016

Sessh had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

161 High-A

About Sessh

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 3/9/1980

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FWIW, Gausman is dealing with shoulder problems again and will likely not be ready for opening day.
  2. Well, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Players were using vast quantities of steroids in the 60's on top of common amphetamine use. What happened in the 90's seemed to have been a huge jump in the quality and effectiveness of the drugs. It only seemed like a jump in usage because the changes were dramatic, sudden and seemed to come out of nowhere. I've posted this before, but Tom House has described this here. That's just the first link in the search results, but there's many sources for the same stuff. Some quotes: So, it does seem steroids were being used heavily even back then. Steroids had been around since the mid 30's and their effects well known. Even without all this stuff, I still wouldn't buy that it took 60 years for athletes to discover what steroids could do for their career. Amphetamines had already been around for decades since the mid 1800's, so they were no strangers to chemical enhancements.
  3. The muscles in charge of the physical process are set into motion by the central nervous system which is not improved by using steroids. The health and efficiency of the CNS is what determines your reaction time and reflexes. Having big muscles will not increase your reaction time or your reflexes. The CNS (ie: muscle memory) pathways responsible for the movements need to be honed like a path would be carved through the bush if you walked down it enough times. Some people have more capable nervous systems than others with higher ceilings as far as ability goes, but the CNS is way more important when it comes to hitting a baseball. A car doesn't steer itself no matter how many HP is under the hood.
  4. Steroids make the ball go further when you hit it. They do nothing for H/E coordination, nothing. They won't help you simply "hit a baseball" which again is too vague. Are we talking about just hitting the ball and putting it in play or hitting the ball at an elite level? Are we talking about sports at any level or just pro sports? Steroids are completely unnecessary to just hit a baseball. Kids do it all the time, so steroids have nothing to do with this discussion unless you're talking about being an elite power hitter among the highest levels of pro sports. Baseball's "steroid era" has been a thing since at least the 60's and probably sooner than that largely fueled by the emphasis on hitting homeruns and that they help you hit more of them provided you can actually make contact in the first place. They don't help you hit a baseball. They improve the results when you do manage to hit a baseball. Swinging a bat at the right time on the right plane is all about H/E coordination. If you don't have that skill developed, steroids won't do a damn thing for you. Amphetamines might.
  5. Interesting discussion here. I don't feel like quoting everything, so I'll just say stuff. First off, I would argue against the Bonds "conditioning" argument as we're not talking about results after making contact, are we? Simply making contact doesn't require strength, it requires H/E coordination and quick reflexes, but not strength if all we're talking about is making contact and putting the ball in fair territory. Hell, I was never a great hitter, but I didn't really practice either. I am sure that I could step into a batting cage and crush a few, though. Hitting a straight fastball is a lot easier than hitting a curveball, though. There are a lot of possible variables here as to what "hitting a baseball" actually means beyond the obvious. Does the result matter? Does it have to be a hit or can it be a ground out to short? There's a world of difference between simply hitting a baseball and hitting a home run, for example. With soccer, I didn't play it much, but did a few times in high school for short periods. It's quite hard to run full speed and kick the ball with any kind of velocity or accuracy. I would say it's much harder than hitting a baseball since both you and the ball are moving usually quite fast. It requires a great deal of physical dexterity and body control to time everything just right that, IMO, eclipses what is required for hitting a baseball. You're not only hitting a moving target, but you're also moving. With hockey, I do watch more but never played. I see a lot of player interviews on this topic in a way and the advice players give for kids coming into the sport is to play multiple sports reason being that the H/E coordination required for hockey can be obtained from any sport; tennis, baseball, soccer and so on. Hockey players will also stand in a circle and kick around a hacky-sack quite often as well as a soccer ball before games. I would say that at least half of the shots made miss the net either from bad aim or from deflections so it seems that it's hard to shoot accurately and at high speeds. I would also say the 10% stat may be a little high though I've not looked into it (I'm lazy), but the best players in the league are probably somewhere in the 12%-18% range. For example, Ovechkin leads the league in goals and he has a .175%. He got another one tonight, so it will probably go up a little. Most players don't score near that clip especially defensemen, so I would take a guess and say it's closer to maybe 7-8% on average. Players hit pucks out of the air all the time, though. Sometimes, passes do travel in the 90's if they are meant to be deflected out of the air and on goal, but they are slap shots more than they are passes though there are such things as slap passes. This is a common offensive strategy. You have to do all this while the other team is beating the shit out of you with body checks, stick work and generally physical play. I would say that also adds to the difficulty. Like the quality of a pitcher may make it easier or harder to make contact, the quality of the goaltending introduces the same variable when it comes to scoring. The best goalies in the league will have save percentages in the .920-.930 range generally, but most are at least .900 though some backups are a little under that mark. At any rate, hitting a baseball is more about H/E coordination, body control and reflexes/reaction time which can be honed in many sports. Hitting a home run is about all those things plus physical strength. I think comparing them to hitting a home run is a better comparison. Which is harder, who knows? I would guess they're all pretty hard and all require the same skills. A hockey stick is meant to flex when you shoot which also adds velocity to the shot, so some of the velocity is about the equipment, too. If you watch a slow mo of a one-timer, you notice the stick hits the ice and bends before hitting the puck, so it's a bit of a sling shot effect. You still have to be pretty strong to hit a 100mph slapper, though. That's not including being able to do it with any kind of accuracy.
  6. I could easily see your first point leading to more pitcher injuries, though. If not real injuries, faked ones. Indeed or you could take Ohtani out of the lineup unless he's pitching. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Ohtani come in as a long reliever just to get him in the lineup in those situations? There's potential there for some interesting strategic moves. It would make the DH a lot more interesting, that's for sure.
  7. Good point about the IBB's and I would also argue that if it's obvious that a pitcher clearly doesn't have it after one batter and is forced to face another two batters, more runs are given up and a pitching change will happen anyway, just later which means more game time. What if the next pitcher comes in and is equally ineffective? Then, another pitching change after three batters. I can definitely see IBB's being used as a loophole here. I hadn't considered that, but it's definitely a valid and interesting point. I disagree about throwing the DH out. I still think that the right solution is to just make it optional and have the home team decide if there will be a DH or not. This way, fans like yourself who do not like the DH won't feel so put off by it. I think it's easier to accept over time if your team is making those decisions instead of having the league mandate it. Making it optional also makes using or not using the DH more of a strategic decision as opposed to an mandatory enforced one. I definitely think this is the better way to go for the fans who are opposed to it as well as the other factors.
  8. Fair enough. At least you're consistent. I share your frustrations with replay, but I think if it was more efficient, it wouldn't be a big deal. I gotta tell you, though. If we get rid of replay, I want to see managers arguing with umpires on the field. I do miss it, I can't lie.
  9. Do you feel the same about balls and strikes?
  10. Well, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that any approach to remedy the situation needs to be done with care and not in a reactionary way which is what this feels like. I know I am always in the comfortable minority here on this topic, but I think what we're seeing in part is the unintended consequences of trying to make the game "clean" when the game has never been clean at any time in it's history. This has been a large scale experiment and it has been a failure. It has just taken this long for it to really become obvious. I don't think people cared much about three hour games in the 90's because it was exciting and someone could hit one out of the stadium at any time. You really had to pay attention and not miss a beat. Now, this "cleaner" product is nowhere near as exciting or alluring to people. Then, people complain that the ball is juiced. What people are essentially asking for is another dead ball era where even less happens than now and probably back then as well. The #1 thing people love about baseball are home runs and the longer, the better. A cleaner game is without the fuel that supplies all those home runs and I would argue that this cleaner product is far worse off than it ever was when the league had players like Sosa, McGuire, Bonds and Canseco. It's just a better product with those guys than without them and the game has suffered. No PED's and no juiced ball is an on-field product that has literally never existed before in baseball history. It has never been clean, ever. Trying to make it so has failed and something has been lost that was very important to the survival of the sport. There might also be a case to be made about the decline in other areas like stolen bases because, as has been said on here before, stealing bases also takes a physical toll on the body which may not have been so bad with PEDs. The game people fell in love with was up to it's eyeballs in PEDs including steroids which have been around since the 30's and now, people want the same game without all that stuff and it's just not going to happen. While I don't see that changing any time soon, I don't think wildly flailing around and making changes on the scale that is being suggested is going to improve the situation. I think it's the way further into it. It feels more like the actions of someone who is panicking than anything else.
  11. Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that. I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends. It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.
  12. I wouldn't say it's needless if it means getting the call right. Besides, take away replays and you'd just have delays in the form of managers arguing with umpires for a couple minutes. I would prefer to make the replay process better and faster as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a good idea, but it is not implemented as efficiently as it can be. The problem is the people at home can determine what the right call is five minutes before the replay judges do. The problem isn't replay itself.
  13. My thoughts exactly. It's quite bizarre what is being bandied about these days. The direction things are going right now is not good IMO. Baseball is in trouble especially with Tony Clark being perfectly fine with another strike in 2021 and that such an idea is gaining traction with players from what I've been reading. Another strike will kill baseball, again, JMO. It will certainly be over for me and I'm already hanging on by a thread, it seems. Some of these changes are drastic and I don't think I have the energy to really dig in, but I will say I disagree with forcing the DH with a rule. I think it should be decided by the home team before every game whether or not both teams will use or not use the DH in both leagues. I don't understand why it has to be enforced one way or the other. Give teams the option and see how it shakes out. Many of these other proposed rule changes are just depressing. Prioritizing game time over everything else can't possibly end well for the sport.
  14. The kid asked him about DL Hall. Why would you just ignore him because of his age? That's silly. The only reason it turned nasty was because Law refused to have a conversation with him and basically attempted to solicit money instead. He can't even have a conversation about baseball without trying to extract money out of people? Lame.. I am not sure where the "racist hat" comment came from or even means, but if he would have just engaged in a civil discussion instead of trying to squeeze the kid for money and then calling him a racist, there'd be no issue. I am not sure why the ages mean anything since it had nothing to do with the direction that discussion took. More on topic, people overvalue their own players all the time. Not saying Law isn't biased, but I have no problem believing we have the worst farm in baseball. We deserve such a designation for crapping the bed all those years on IFA and horrible trades. I get comfort out of being #30. Nowhere to go but up.
  15. *sighs* You know, it's really depressing to see that there's likely another strike on the horizon. Evan's comments are also disappointing since without "our money", they'd have nothing for all that work they've been doing their whole lives. Cry me a river, Evan. I honestly don't blame owners for not wanting to commit to 10 year contracts at 30M a year since those deals usually end up being disasters for those teams. They should be thankful to be multi-millionaires for playing professional sports. It only makes me think these players really take a lot for granted when it comes to these matters. The money that pays the players comes out of the pockets of the people who support the team, but that seems to have flown over Evan's head. Did he forget that part? Okay, Evan. You guys go ahead and start another strike and see what happens to all that money when the fans leave again. Last time, it was stronger steroids and home runs that got people excited about baseball again, so what will save the game next time? After the strike in '94-'95, it took me over 10 years to come back to the sport in any consistent capacity though I did watch the playoffs. I still watched sportscenter for NHL coverage and I kept up with all the HR stuff of that era which I loved, but I was mostly a dormant, casual fan that had better things to do than to keep up with MLB any closer than that. Started doing O's Matchups in like 2006 until the final time when I did them here one year. The '04-'05 NHL lockout also turned me away for over 10 years and I was a huge hockey fan at the time. I didn't start trying to catch back up on the NHL until 2016. Part of the reason for these long departures is that I have other things to quickly fill that void and part of it is being extremely disappointed in those leagues for allowing that to happen.. all over money. I think if another MLB strike happens, that'll be it for me and baseball. I'm already disappointed with several other things in MLB over the years and that would be the tipping point. To be honest, I am not sure baseball would survive another strike. I'm pretty sure I'd be one of the casualties. Some people didn't come back at all after the first one.
×
×
  • Create New...