Because all of the things you talk about don't have to do with being stronger. Most of it is central nervous system related. Which steroids cannot change.

It's why I ask if taking steroids can make you better at xbox 360. It flat out is NOT as simple as getting stronger and having a faster swing. If you want to believe that, that's fine. But it doesn't make it true.

So you're back to the "bat speed doesn't help baseball players" argument?

Never said that. The faster a guy can swing a bat the harder he should be able to hit a ball. It doesn't mean he can hit a ball any better however, and it also doesn't mean the initial reaction to the ball coming at him is any faster. THAT part of his swing is determined by his central nervous system.

I mean I've only got 23 ****ing years in this field, but you guys are the experts. :rolleyes:

You're making apparent that whatever 'field' you're in has nothing to do with baseball.

You simply don't understand the mechanics of a baseball swing if you truly believe what you're saying here. Even facially, your argument doesn't make any sense.

Like I said - this argument has nothing to do with the physical effects of steroids and everything to do with what makes a good hitter. You seem incapable of separating the two and I think it's because the pro-PED crowd just can't bring themselves to admit that PEDs have a massive impact on the competitive balance if some players are using them and other's aren't.

Whatever - the argument is in black and white and plain for anyone that wants to pay attention. Your position is that batspeed doesn't make better overall hitters. Fine - it's patently false, but whatever.

Enjoy that flat earth.

You're too stupid to realize you are the flat Earther in this argument. You don't understand the difference between the CNS and PNS and how steroids do and don't effect either. It applies to this discussion completely but because you are unaware of this, you keep arguing. you're still the dumbass that said that steroids target the fast twitch muscles, which would get you laughed right out of the room with people who deal with this stuff.

Again, you're the flat earther here. Just too ****ing ignorant to know it.

I'm not sure why we can't agree that "Performance Enhancing Drugs" don't actually enhance your performance.

No, it has nothing to do with CNS or PNS. It has to do with whether or not steroids can make you stronger. This is simple logic.

Steroids make you stronger.
Strength increases bat speed.
Increased bat speed enables you to be less quick with reaction time and still catch up.
Still catching up means you get longer to evaluate a pitch.
More time to evaluate a pitch increases the likelihood that the pitch will be hit.

23 years in the field of making stupid arguments? Sounds right.

Both you idiots realize that you can get stronger, and not have a faster bat swing right??????

Two guys both bench press 315 as their max.

Which guy is more powerful? Tell me.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL IMPACT OF STEROIDS! THEY ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

Jesus, do I need to put a period between every one of those to slow them down to the point that they're comprehensible for you? I'm accepting your position regarding the physical impact of steroids as 100% accurate. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I also don't care. I'm taking the point that you've conceded - that steroids improve strength and batspeed - as the fundamental cannon of the entire argument.

Using nothing more than that very same fundamental cannon applied to baseball, something I know a shitload about, I can tell you that you're just flat wrong. I've given you rationales for it. I've given you real-world examples of it.

Batspeed makes a HUGE difference in a hitters overall ability to hit a baseball. Not just how far they can hit it.

The rest of it is you just trying to talk about the physical impacts of steroids again because it's evidently the only thing you actually have a point of reference for. The fact is that their physical impacts are not germane to the discussion as I've gone ahead and used the ground rules you've set to move forward.

If steroids improve strength (A), strength improves batspeed (B) and batspeed improve overall hitting ability (C), then using the transitive property, steroids improve overall hitting ability. A and B in that string are points you've conceded. That leaves only C - batspeed improves overall hitting - as open to discussion.

And you have yet to marshall an argument suggesting otherwise.

But yet again, you've proven completely incapable of carrying on a rational discussion without spitting on your screen and otherwise hurling insults.

Keep on proving my point, Al.

Getting stronger does't mean your bat speed will improve.

Do you understand this?

Yeah, you can, if you train like an idiot. You can also get stronger and with that strength greatly increase your batspeed.

Baseball players don't train like idiots.

When they add strength, they do so in a manner that allows them to increase their batspeed via increasing their ability to move mass without decreasing their flexibility.

I do not see what's so hard to understand about this. Further, the fact that you're citing bench press again indicates how little you know about a baseball swing. Most hitters will generate a great deal of their batspeed from their legs. It allows them to swing their hips through harder and faster. The added strength in their arms will allow them to keep their hands back despite the additional force generated by their legs. That creates a great deal of kinetic energy buildup through their back and shoulders. As the ball reaches the hitting zone, they can then release all that. The greater the energy, the greater the speed (unless you sacrifice flexibility in the process; but hitters know better).

Again - you simply don't know enough about hitting a baseball to make the arguments your trying to make. Everything about a major league swing is improved through additional strength, unless your some juiced up idiot that strength trains to the point that you lose the 'loose limbs' that will let you flick the bat.

This has nothing to do with it. You have no clue as to what you're talking about.

I am citing the bench press as a reason. Answer the question. Two guys bench press 315 as their absolute max. Who is more powerful? Answer it.

It absolutely can if you do it correctly.

Again, I'm not talking about handspeed. Your position is that handspeed remains unchanged because fast-twitch muscles aren't impacted. Okay, whatever - I don't know why sprinters continue to use PEDs if that's the case as running speed is based almost entirely on fast-twitch muscles, but it's beside the point - I'm willing to concede your position for the sake of argument.

Batspeed, however, is more than just handspeed. It's a product of both handspeed and core strength. You continue to ignore the fact that you're swinging an object that has mass.

If can bench 100 lbs and try to swing a 3 lb, end-weighted object, I'm not going to be able to swing it nearly as hard as if I work out for awhile and get my strength to the point that I can bench 200 lbs. I'm going to be able to move that 3 lb object much more quickly because I don't have to work as hard to overcome the 'inertia' of a resting object.

You keep focusing on the ability to move hands (I guess) and speed/power comes from so much more than that. It comes, again, primarily from your legs. From there it simply compounds itself through your body and the strength builds on strength to create speed.

There's absolutely no way of knowing. There are too many variations in the bio-mechanics.

Now go ahead and explain to me how strength isn't at all relevant in someone's ability to move mass.