Posted by thunder1008 on 5/11/2011 1:27:00 AM (view original):
When you talk about pitchers ultimately being limited in velocity by mechanics and tendon strength, not the strength of their muscles, you're right.  Not meaning to hijack this thread, but I wonder why the performance limits of professional baseball pitchers, in terms of velocity, seem less susceptible to advancement than the performance capabilities of other athletes.

If you look at track and field athletes in particular, the high end of human performance seems to have increased markedly over the past century, which you would expect from increased size, improved diet and better training.  In the past 100 years, the world record for the high jump has increased about 20%, from 6 feet 7 inches to 8 feet 1/2 inch.  The world record for the long jump has increased about 15%, from 24-11 to 29-4.  The world record for the mile has improved by about 13%, from 4:15 to 3:43.

Yet if anecdotal history is to be believed, pitchers like Walter Johnson and Smokey Joe Wood could throw close to 100 MPH, pitchers like Bob Feller and Steve Dalkowski threw at about the same speed 50 years later and maybe the likes of Aroldis Chapman, Steve Strasberg and Joel Zumaya have nudged the high end to the neighborhood of 105 MPH today (about 5% higher).  Just wondering why pitching velocity hasn't improved commensurate with running and jumping (and lifting and strength records), which also require a subtle combination of muscle strength, tendon strength, agility and training.

Is it that the 100 MPH claims for the early pitchers are grossly inflated, and Aroldis Chapman is really 15 MPH faster than Walter Johnson and Smokey Joe Wood?  Is it that baseball had a larger player pool and was more competitive 100 years ago than other human endeavors so baseball athletes approached the upper limits of human performance more quickly?  Is it that athletes train for years to break running and jumping records but there is no similar competition for pitching velocity records that ultimately pushes athletes to the high end of human performance?  Is it some subtlety of pitching mechanics that doesn't exist in other sports?

Sorry for the diversion.  Just wondering...

There has been ample reseasch on this over the years.  In every era there have been guys who probably topped out at close to 100mph.  The reason that the maximum is reached is beyound this a tendon is the pitching arm will snap.  This is also why there have always been smaller pitchers (think Pedro Martinez, Tim Lincecum) that throw as hard as large ones (like Randy Johnson). 

Here is a link that explains it

Posted by dn8779 on 5/11/2011 9:18:00 PM (view original):

All I can say is I like it.  I grew tired of watching low-skill monsters swing for the fences, and welcome back the finer intricacies in baseball.  Bring back speed and defense!

100% agree.

Posted by llamanunts on 5/11/2011 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Joe Posnanski weighs in:

joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-i-think-steroids-are-out-of.html

I'm still pondering the sidebar poll for greatest rock band that doesn't list The Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Animals, Cream, Blind Faith, Velvet Underground, Aerosmith, The Who, The Yardbirds, Buddy Holly, The Byrds, The Beach Boys, R.E.M., U2, Queen, The Ramones, The Stooges, Nirvana, AC/DC, Guns N Roses. CCR or The Clash.  Hmmm.  Guess I'll take it on faith that Joe knows more about sports than music.

It appears to be bands that are active or at least kinda sorta active.

Posted by boogerlips on 5/12/2011 3:19:00 PM (view original):
It appears to be bands that are active or at least kinda sorta active.

I know.  I was just being difficult, which comes naturally to me all the time and even more so in the middle of the night.  If the list had clearly been restricted to currently active bands, I wouldn't have quibbled.  The inclusion of the "kinda sorta" bands got me started.

Posted by zubinsum on 5/11/2011 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thunder1008 on 5/11/2011 1:27:00 AM (view original):
When you talk about pitchers ultimately being limited in velocity by mechanics and tendon strength, not the strength of their muscles, you're right.  Not meaning to hijack this thread, but I wonder why the performance limits of professional baseball pitchers, in terms of velocity, seem less susceptible to advancement than the performance capabilities of other athletes.

If you look at track and field athletes in particular, the high end of human performance seems to have increased markedly over the past century, which you would expect from increased size, improved diet and better training.  In the past 100 years, the world record for the high jump has increased about 20%, from 6 feet 7 inches to 8 feet 1/2 inch.  The world record for the long jump has increased about 15%, from 24-11 to 29-4.  The world record for the mile has improved by about 13%, from 4:15 to 3:43.

Yet if anecdotal history is to be believed, pitchers like Walter Johnson and Smokey Joe Wood could throw close to 100 MPH, pitchers like Bob Feller and Steve Dalkowski threw at about the same speed 50 years later and maybe the likes of Aroldis Chapman, Steve Strasberg and Joel Zumaya have nudged the high end to the neighborhood of 105 MPH today (about 5% higher).  Just wondering why pitching velocity hasn't improved commensurate with running and jumping (and lifting and strength records), which also require a subtle combination of muscle strength, tendon strength, agility and training.

Is it that the 100 MPH claims for the early pitchers are grossly inflated, and Aroldis Chapman is really 15 MPH faster than Walter Johnson and Smokey Joe Wood?  Is it that baseball had a larger player pool and was more competitive 100 years ago than other human endeavors so baseball athletes approached the upper limits of human performance more quickly?  Is it that athletes train for years to break running and jumping records but there is no similar competition for pitching velocity records that ultimately pushes athletes to the high end of human performance?  Is it some subtlety of pitching mechanics that doesn't exist in other sports?

Sorry for the diversion.  Just wondering...

There has been ample reseasch on this over the years.  In every era there have been guys who probably topped out at close to 100mph.  The reason that the maximum is reached is beyound this a tendon is the pitching arm will snap.  This is also why there have always been smaller pitchers (think Pedro Martinez, Tim Lincecum) that throw as hard as large ones (like Randy Johnson). 

Here is a link that explains it

Thanks.  Good article.  That's something I like about this forum.  Toss out a question you've been musing about and you will usually get a smart answer.

Posted by teal_leo on 5/11/2011 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Could be MLB tinkering with baseball manufacture.

Sure, of course.

Posted by boogerlips on 5/12/2011 3:19:00 PM (view original):
It appears to be bands that are active or at least kinda sorta active.

Who's the least kinda sorta active?  I guess I'm going with Pearl Jam, but I don't really know.  I'm old.

Pearl Jam and Phish are probably the oldest and least active on the list.  Dave Matthews, Chili Peppers and Radiohead are getting up there as well.  If you're going to include those guys, no excuse for not including U2, R.E.M. and Nirvana, a Pearl Jam contemporary (and probably a better band). 

And nobody is as old as I am.  `Cept maybe doubletruck. 

I remember Pearl Jam came out with an anti-Bush album in '06. It was nearly as crappy as the rest of their crappy music.

Posted by boogerlips on 5/13/2011 1:48:00 AM (view original):
I remember Pearl Jam came out with an anti-Bush album in '06. It was nearly as crappy as the rest of their crappy music.

Are you too young to remember "Ten"?

Posted by boogerlips on 5/13/2011 1:48:00 AM (view original):
I remember Pearl Jam came out with an anti-Bush album in '06. It was nearly as crappy as the rest of their crappy music.

Are you too young to remember "Ten"?

I hate to take this thread back to the original question but I think one of the reasons we're seeing more dominant pitching is a change in focus in player development over the last few years.  As offenses ramped up, teams realized they needed better pitching so more time, effort, and resources have been put into pitching - not just investing in young players and focusing on their development, but also looking at ongoing conditionaing and training (more work between starts, long-toss exercises, etc.).  It's just the natural swing of the pendulum - better hitting bred better pitching, and in a few years the dominance of pitching will breed more focus on batting.

Or not.

Posted by zubinsum on 5/14/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by boogerlips on 5/13/2011 1:48:00 AM (view original):
I remember Pearl Jam came out with an anti-Bush album in '06. It was nearly as crappy as the rest of their crappy music.

Are you too young to remember "Ten"?

you can say that again

Posted by pinotfan on 5/14/2011 8:57:00 PM (view original):
I hate to take this thread back to the original question but I think one of the reasons we're seeing more dominant pitching is a change in focus in player development over the last few years.  As offenses ramped up, teams realized they needed better pitching so more time, effort, and resources have been put into pitching - not just investing in young players and focusing on their development, but also looking at ongoing conditionaing and training (more work between starts, long-toss exercises, etc.).  It's just the natural swing of the pendulum - better hitting bred better pitching, and in a few years the dominance of pitching will breed more focus on batting.

Or not.

I disagree somewhat.  There is more emphasis on pitching because of the divisional play-off structure makes it possible or even likely to win with a couple of studs and some also-rans.