15 ms·

I mean, if you look at a slow-mo of any pro pitching, you'll have no questions why their elbows are getting messed up. While the speeds they achieve are an impr

I mean, if you look at a slow-mo of any pro pitching, you'll have no questions why their elbows are getting messed up. While the speeds they achieve are an impressive feat, the amount of torque and the way it applies to the elbow is just insane. Everyone familiar with ballet for example knows that the dancers slowly but surely destroy their bodies for their art. The question we need to ask is if we want baseball to be the same way.

eptcyka 3y ago
This is almost universally true for any professional sport. Ultimately, it's personal preference, and the people at the top are committed to fighting to get to the top anyway.
- contravariant 3y ago
  If destroying your body is an acceptable tactic I'm not sure what the fuss about doping is about.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    There is doping and there is doping. I don't see why athletes over say 30 can't do some mild oral steroids to bring them back to the testosterone levels of a 25 year old. Would help with recovery and probably lessen the severity of injury.
    - automatic6131 3y ago
      >I don't see why athletes over say 30 can't do some mild oral steroids Because you've never met an athlete, I guess. None of them would stop at "mild".
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Then why would they stop at none?
        PeterisP 3y ago
        Because we can try to test for the difference between "mild" and "none", and the risk of disqualification does motivate many athletes to stop at none.
        willcipriano 3y ago
        I would dose based on testosterone levels, if they took steroids out of program that would show in the blood work and the dose adjusted to zero, after that you test for the now prohibited steroid use. The goal isn't to get them to a superhuman level, just to level the best genetics produce.
    - Etheryte 3y ago
      Medical studies agree that steroid use reduces life expectancy, it's one of the core reasons why they're highly regulated. Not only does it reduce life expectancy, but time spent healthy is reduced as well, meaning that not only might you die a number of years earlier, you'll run into age related illnesses a number of years earlier as well.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Studies don't show that for mild oral steroid use after 30, I also gave reasons I suspect it would be net beneficial for health. Men have lower testosterone levels than their grandfathers, there are many possible causes but the treatment I'm talking about only really brings you to a bit above where grandpa would've been.
  - thih9 3y ago
    I wouldn’t compare these. While both are bad and should be addressed, there’s a difference between “moving like this repeatedly for 20 years might cause mobility issues” and “injecting this might cause a heart attack”.
  - ck45 3y ago
    It's about keeping danger to the athlete to a moderate level. The line has to be drawn somewhere because a pro athlete will do the dumbest thing to gain an advantage. And with doping, we've nearly seen where this can end with pro bicycle riders like Bjarne with a hematocrit of 64%. Some sports ban certain techniques to protect athletes, just some examples: * Backflip in figure skating * Sommersault in longjump * Spinning javelin in javelin throw * Cartwheel in shot put
    - contravariant 3y ago
      True, and if anything I'm arguing for exactly that, keeping danger to a moderate level. It's just that doping is only one way, so ignoring something like this which seems likely to cause lasting damage because 'destroying the body for sport is not unusual' is a bit weird when on the other hand athletes are subjected to incredibly invasive surveillance to avoid the temptation to use even the tiniest amount of substances. I honestly believe that some forms of doping are less dangerous than professional sport per se. This isn't the fairest comparison but far fewer cyclists died of EPO than by trying to descend too quickly.
jghn 3y ago
Sometimes my arm hurts just replicating some of their pitches in slow motion. I have a long held belief that the most talented pitchers of all time never made it to pro ball for exactly this reason. A less commonly acknowledged attribute is being enough of a genetic freak that one's arm doesn't slag out.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Or could it be that part of talent as sportsman is to have genes/body that is at extreme of the curve. There is talent to be able to throw one ball, but entirely an other talent to be able to keep throwing nearly as good balls. And later has much more value in professional setting.
  - mlinhares 3y ago
    That is already true for most pro sports, the people that make it to the top are already freaks of nature.
  - jghn 3y ago
    That's basically my point. The ability to persist is undersold when people talk about required talent. The most physically gifted quarterback on the planet is worth nothing if he gets ripped in two the first time he's sacked.

eptcyka 3y ago

This is almost universally true for any professional sport. Ultimately, it's personal preference, and the people at the top are committed to fighting to get to the top anyway.

contravariant 3y ago
If destroying your body is an acceptable tactic I'm not sure what the fuss about doping is about.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  There is doping and there is doping. I don't see why athletes over say 30 can't do some mild oral steroids to bring them back to the testosterone levels of a 25 year old. Would help with recovery and probably lessen the severity of injury.
  - automatic6131 3y ago
    >I don't see why athletes over say 30 can't do some mild oral steroids Because you've never met an athlete, I guess. None of them would stop at "mild".
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Then why would they stop at none?
      - PeterisP 3y ago
        Because we can try to test for the difference between "mild" and "none", and the risk of disqualification does motivate many athletes to stop at none.
        willcipriano 3y ago
        I would dose based on testosterone levels, if they took steroids out of program that would show in the blood work and the dose adjusted to zero, after that you test for the now prohibited steroid use. The goal isn't to get them to a superhuman level, just to level the best genetics produce.
  - Etheryte 3y ago
    Medical studies agree that steroid use reduces life expectancy, it's one of the core reasons why they're highly regulated. Not only does it reduce life expectancy, but time spent healthy is reduced as well, meaning that not only might you die a number of years earlier, you'll run into age related illnesses a number of years earlier as well.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Studies don't show that for mild oral steroid use after 30, I also gave reasons I suspect it would be net beneficial for health. Men have lower testosterone levels than their grandfathers, there are many possible causes but the treatment I'm talking about only really brings you to a bit above where grandpa would've been.
- thih9 3y ago
  I wouldn’t compare these. While both are bad and should be addressed, there’s a difference between “moving like this repeatedly for 20 years might cause mobility issues” and “injecting this might cause a heart attack”.
- ck45 3y ago
  It's about keeping danger to the athlete to a moderate level. The line has to be drawn somewhere because a pro athlete will do the dumbest thing to gain an advantage. And with doping, we've nearly seen where this can end with pro bicycle riders like Bjarne with a hematocrit of 64%. Some sports ban certain techniques to protect athletes, just some examples: * Backflip in figure skating * Sommersault in longjump * Spinning javelin in javelin throw * Cartwheel in shot put
  - contravariant 3y ago
    True, and if anything I'm arguing for exactly that, keeping danger to a moderate level. It's just that doping is only one way, so ignoring something like this which seems likely to cause lasting damage because 'destroying the body for sport is not unusual' is a bit weird when on the other hand athletes are subjected to incredibly invasive surveillance to avoid the temptation to use even the tiniest amount of substances. I honestly believe that some forms of doping are less dangerous than professional sport per se. This isn't the fairest comparison but far fewer cyclists died of EPO than by trying to descend too quickly.

jghn 3y ago

Sometimes my arm hurts just replicating some of their pitches in slow motion. I have a long held belief that the most talented pitchers of all time never made it to pro ball for exactly this reason. A less commonly acknowledged attribute is being enough of a genetic freak that one's arm doesn't slag out.

Ekaros 3y ago
Or could it be that part of talent as sportsman is to have genes/body that is at extreme of the curve. There is talent to be able to throw one ball, but entirely an other talent to be able to keep throwing nearly as good balls. And later has much more value in professional setting.
- mlinhares 3y ago
  That is already true for most pro sports, the people that make it to the top are already freaks of nature.
- jghn 3y ago
  That's basically my point. The ability to persist is undersold when people talk about required talent. The most physically gifted quarterback on the planet is worth nothing if he gets ripped in two the first time he's sacked.