Cedric en fuego!!

[baltfan]

13 hours ago, Hallas said:

This is dependent on the idea that the amount of energy delivered is somewhat constant.  In practice I think that while there would be some velocity reductions, the limitations are more on the raw velocity, and pitchers would be able to compensate with stronger arm or leg muscles.   My reasoning here is based on NFL combine numbers; a decent number of QBs are able to hit 60+ MPH, while there are like 2 pitchers in all of MLB that are able to exceed 102 MPH (which is what you would need to match the energy of a 60 mph football.)

 

I do think that it would cause fatigue faster among starters, unless they paced themselves more, so starter velocity would probably go down by theoretical number, while reliver velocity might only go down 1 mph or not at all.

 

A heavier ball will reduce spin-induced movement too, and will (likely) reduce the amount of spin pitchers can impart (though this has the same caveat as above with pitchers adapting with larger muscles.)  So even if velocity only goes down a little bit the reduced movement should make the ball easier to hit.

There is no chance that over 60 mph for a QB is the equivalent of 102.  QBs do not train for velocity like pitchers do. 

[Hallas]

21 minutes ago, baltfan said:

There is no chance that over 60 mph for a QB is the equivalent of 102.  QBs do not train for velocity like pitchers do. 

In terms of energy?

 

e = 1/2 mv^2

football: 60 mph -> 26.8 m/s, 14.5 oz = .411 kg.  1/2 * (26.8^2) * .411 = 147.5 joules.

baseball: 102 mph -> 45.59 m/s, 5 oz = .142 kg.  1/2 * (45.59^2) * .142 = 147.5 joules.

 

I don't think they're 100% equivalent - I think the higher raw speed on the arm of a 102 mph pitch introduces more stress on the arm than a 60 mph football throw.  But they're not that far off.

Edited Saturday at 09:34 by Hallas

[baltfan]

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

In terms of energy?

 

e = 1/2 mv^2

football: 60 mph -> 26.8 m/s, 14.5 oz = .411 kg.  1/2 * (26.8^2) * .411 = 147.5 joules.

baseball: 102 mph -> 45.59 m/s, 5 oz = .142 kg.  1/2 * (45.59^2) * .142 = 147.5 joules.

 

I don't think they're 100% equivalent - I think the higher raw speed on the arm of a 102 mph pitch introduces more stress on the arm than a 60 mph football throw.  But they're not that far off.

Interesting but I don’t think it translates 1:1.  

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, Hallas said:

In terms of energy?

 

e = 1/2 mv^2

football: 60 mph -> 26.8 m/s, 14.5 oz = .411 kg.  1/2 * (26.8^2) * .411 = 147.5 joules.

baseball: 102 mph -> 45.59 m/s, 5 oz = .142 kg.  1/2 * (45.59^2) * .142 = 147.5 joules.

 

I don't think they're 100% equivalent - I think the higher raw speed on the arm of a 102 mph pitch introduces more stress on the arm than a 60 mph football throw.  But they're not that far off.

What are we talking about here, that heavier baseballs thrown slightly slower will not really be any harder or different for pitchers, because there a lot of QBs who can throw 60? While the energy is comparable, I think there are a lot of variables not accounted for here. Like, the pitching motion is substantially different from a QB's throwing motion. I'm guessing the QB takes a few steps, he's not throwing from a mound, he probably uses slightly different muscle groups. Also, QBs throw at something less than max effort a large percentage of the time, at least outside of combine drills for max velocity.

I think it's very much an open question as to whether a heavier baseball would impact injuries or fatigue. Although I'm not quite sure which way. My own datapoint is that trying to throw a very light whiffleball at max effort for very long hurt my shoulder a lot.

[Sports Guy]

He didn’t execute it last night but Mullins tried to bunt last night. I hope we see him trying to do more of that.  I know teams will try to take it away often but when he has the opportunity to do it, I hope he tries because he’s an accomplished bunter.

[Jim'sKid26]

9 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What are we talking about here, that heavier baseballs thrown slightly slower will not really be any harder or different for pitchers, because there a lot of QBs who can throw 60? While the energy is comparable, I think there are a lot of variables not accounted for here. Like, the pitching motion is substantially different from a QB's throwing motion. I'm guessing the QB takes a few steps, he's not throwing from a mound, he probably uses slightly different muscle groups. Also, QBs throw at something less than max effort a large percentage of the time, at least outside of combine drills for max velocity.

I think it's very much an open question as to whether a heavier baseball would impact injuries or fatigue. Although I'm not quite sure which way. My own datapoint is that trying to throw a very light whiffleball at max effort for very long hurt my shoulder a lot.

Why not change the bat? The idea that wood bats make sense in the modern era is rather suspect. Give hitters a better weapon and offense will improve. Make the barrel bigger and the bat lighter. Equipment guys could "fit" each hitter like the guys in the Tour equipment trucks do now on the PGA tour. Leave the ball the same. 

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Why not change the bat? The idea that wood bats make sense in the modern era is rather suspect. Give hitters a better weapon and offense will improve. Make the barrel bigger and the bat lighter. Equipment guys could "fit" each hitter like the guys in the Tour equipment trucks do now on the PGA tour. Leave the ball the same. 

You could. But I think that's harder because every player has their own bat they like. Bats aren't, and haven't ever been, subject to the same kind of requirements balls are. The ball is a very specific size and weight and COR, etc. The rules about the bats are basically that they can't be longer than X (something crazy like 48", which nobody has used in a century+), or heavier than Y (again, tailored to deadball or Ruth era batters).

I think the pushback from fans and players if they went away from wood would be very substantial. I think much more substantial than the pushback for the pitch clock or other recent changes. Just guessing, but I think it would be easier to convince the world that moving the mound back is a better option. Just moving away from the sound of ball hitting wood bat might spark a revolution. There are no shortage of people who say college baseball isn't real baseball because of aluminum bats (even if they've moved to composite? I don't watch enough college ball to know.)

Also, if you're not careful you could get into a college baseball situation where before they got the bats under control teams were scoring like 10 runs a game or more. And I have no idea of the underlying reasons, but in 2023 the median runs/game across all college baseball leagues was nearly seven, which is a level that hasn't been approached in MLB since the 1800s. The ACC averaged 7.5, which makes pre-humidor Coors look like a Camden Yards where every batter is a right-handed pull hitter.

Edited Saturday at 13:13 by DrungoHazewood

[yayterps]

On 6/28/2024 at 7:29 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

Santander has an OPS+ of 128 and a wRC+ of 125. In other words, at or near his career peak, and better than Cal or Brooks' career marks. A 128 OPS+ would be Nick Markakis' second-best offensive season.

MLB overall batting average this year is .242, 5th-lowest of all time. League OBP of .311 is in the bottom 15% since 1900. And while slugging will probably inch up through the summer, the current mark of .393 is lower than any season since 1992.

My guess is that they juice the ball next year, since the shift ban hasn't really had much of an overall effect. Even if it's revived a few careers like Ryan O'Hearn's.

they could also reward batting discipline by forcing pitchers to throw real strikes with at least a robo challenge system

[RZNJ]

Here’s an idea and I’m just spitballing.  They lowered the mound after 1968 to help hitters.  Also, when pitchers are rehabbing they always go from flat ground before progressing to the mound.  So here’s the question.

Does throwing from a mound benefit the pitcher for effectiveness but also put more stress on the arm?

I would say the answers are a) yes, definitely. and d) most likely.   So to both provide more offense and lessen pitcher injury, lower the mound again and maybe eventually have no mound.   

Edited Saturday at 13:36 by RZNJ

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, yayterps said:

they could also reward batting discipline by forcing pitchers to throw real strikes with at least a robo challenge system

The AAA experience is that walks went off the charts. Literally the IL has a higher walk rate than any season in MLB history by a lot.