Originally Posted by BobC
Am aware of that. Was speaking to arm strength, not overall body strength, that is often also referred to in relation to being able to throw harder. Of course they need leg/core strength to throw harder, but again, that alone will not get them to an elite pitching level velocity.
The main point I was trying to make, and which HistoricNewspapers didn't appear to grasp, is that the human body is basically a biomechanical machine. And when it comes to pitching, there would appear to be a specific makeup of the human body that optimizes that human biomechanical machine to throw baseballs faster and harder than anyone else. And that was the context I was referring to in regards to size not mattering so much. When most people refer to someone's size, it invariably always seems to go to height and weight for that measure. And that seemed to be the course a lot of people were pushing, that when it comes to pitching, bigger (in this case primarily height) is always better. My point is that despite the obvious physical advantage a much taller pitcher has over a shorter one (because the ball they throw has less distance to get it to the catcher's mitt), it seems that a pitcher can be too tall and thus the human biomechanical pitching machine falls out of that optimal condition for throwing harder and faster than anyone else. If not, then one would assume the best pitchers today would all be '7 foot or taller. Just look at all the taller basketball players out there in the world today, its not like we have a complete dearth of tall athletes. So why aren't there more Randy Johnson types (super tall) pitching in MLB then? Gee, maybe its because they get too tall and their biomechanical pitching machine, which is their body, no longer operates at that optimal level for pitching. And the drop off is apparently so drastic at some point that it even negates the physical pitching advantage their height otherwise brings them. That was why I referred to RJ as a possible super freak in terms of pitching, his body type (height) appears to be way outside the parameters of the optimal human pitching machine, yet he excelled, and endured, as an elite pitcher for a considerable period of time.
If size (height) is so big a deal in athletes as some have stated, here's maybe an even easier example to explain how a biomechanical human machine has an optimal area/range where size does indeed matter, but not in terms of the tallest or biggest. Take sprinters for example. It is obvious that a taller person has a longer stride than a shorter person, so when they go run a 100 yard dash, they can do so in fewer strides than a short person. So why aren't the fastest sprinters in the world all over '7 tall? C'mon size matters people, please explain that one to me! Could it be that the human biomechanical machine for sprinters has an optimal size range somewhere more towards the average, plus a few inches or so to also take into account the physical advantage a taller person also has? And how many really short, say '5"5, world class sprinters are out there? Could this be because the biomechanical bodies of shorter people, plus the shorter physical stride disadvantage, combine to make them slower than taller people? And if that is the case, it will be even rarer to find really short world class sprinters, just like I alluded to in an earlier post how it would likely be even rarer to find elite and successful '5"5 pitchers throwing even close to 100 in MLB. And HistoricNewspapers, that is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post that apparently you didn't understand. But you responded by asking me if size doesn't matter, then where are great are all the great '5"5 tall pitchers. Asked and previously answered counselor, move on. This sprinter example is similar to explaining how the human biomechanical machine works in pitchers, and there being an optimal sort of mid-range size and body type (plus a few inches to take into account the obvious physical advantage). Obviously there is more to being a great pitcher than just velocity, but I specifically picked sprinters for my biomechanical human comparison because unlike the more involved skill of pitching, sprinting (running) is a basic human activity we pretty much all have done at some time in our lives. And there are fewer variables in running than in pitching, as well as sprinters having a much more objective and easily measurable way to determine actually who was the best.
Endurance, which I previously brought up and feel is also an unbelievably important part in this debate, is something that others seem to brush aside. (The best ability is availability!) I refer to a pitcher as a biomechanical pitching machine, and IMO an important factor in how well any type of machine operates is how it doesn't break down from stress or use all the time, and continues to operate at, or near, its optimal level for a long and continuous period. As was alluded to in a recent post by AndrewJerome, it seems that some of these taller pitchers tend to have injury or endurance issues. For an elite few taller pitchers, their biomechanical machines may operate better than almost everyone elses in terms of velocity, but in regards to endurance, the human body/machine wasn't designed for what they're doing to it, and therefore it suffers breakdowns (injuries) or is unable to maintain that optimal operating level for long (lack of endurance). Even RJ was sidelined with injuries for a significant time, was he not? And HistoricNewspapers, I mentioned Grove's and Spahn's heights in that earlir post being '6"1 and '6"0 to show they were not real short, but more toward's average, or slightly above average, height so their biomechanical pitching machines operated at what appears to be a more optimal body size/type for them to be operating at a combined higher level for velocity and endurance. Their human bodies/machines were built to not just pitch faster than a normal human, but also to be able to do so longer and much more often than a typical human as well.
And to further point out how this pushing of a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine is indicative of them maybe not always being the best, isn't one method people use to not have a somewhat sensitive machine, like a human body, continually having issues and breaking down, is to use it less often and not run the machine as long and as hard as they otherwise could. Gee, kind of like how starting pitchers almost never pitch complete, or near complete, games anymore. Management today doesn't want to break the machines, er...pitchers. Yet pitchers like Grove and Spahn regularly started, and completed, games they pitched in, without a big, quick dropoff in their optimal performance or experiencing debilitating and career threatening injuries. I know, Grove had some issues in 1934, but came back afterward to still great performance levels, after taking into consideration other factors such as his ever advancing age, and did so without the benefit of modern medical advances.
What scares me is if you statisticians and other always talking up about how today's players are always bigger, stronger, faster (and thus always better) than yesterday's players are even remotely right, we're going to eventually end up with all MLB rosters having 8-9-10 pitchers on every staff that are all '6"11 or taller, and all able to throw over 100 MPH. So their managers will have a different pitcher come out every inning so they don't overwork and blow-out anyone's arm out, and a pitcher's wins truly will be meaningless. And if that does turn out to be the case, will this type of pitcher really turn out to be the future talent all these brilliant statisticians will then be pushing as their choice for greatest of all time?
Statisticians in their use of numbers and stats dehumanize MLB baseball and it's players by trying to look at only statistics to measure and compare the players, and how best to play the game itself. So I think it only fair then that I can equally push my point as to pitchers being dehumanized as biomechanical machines. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?) And so if you think about it in those terms, what if you went out to buy the greatest washing machine or car (both machines), to actually use, that you could. Would you really want to buy a car or wash machine that ran unbelievably great at some point, but broke down and needed repairs a lot, or that you couldn't use all the time and/or always count on when really needed it, and ended up having to replace after not too many years? Or would you rather buy something that ran pretty great from the start and you could count on to use pretty much whenever and for however as long as you needed it, with minimal repairs and maintenance, and you didn't need to replace it for 20+ years? If anyone reading this is actually being honest with themselves, I think we all know what the answer will be. And if you do recognize how statistics dehumanize players and try to turn them into nothing more than numbers, then considering them as nothing much more than biomechanical machines is a simple logical extension of that thinking. So to follow statistical reasoning alone and ignore the human factor so much, without giving equal consideration and credit to my points, would tend to make one a hypocrite!!!
|