Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Brian Vikander on Steve Dalkowski and the 110-MPH Fastball

David Laurila: How hard did Steve Dalkowski throw?

Brian Vikander: “In my opinion, he threw over 110 mph. I base that on a couple of things. The first is that there’s not one individual — not one — who has ever come forward and said that he was not the hardest thrower, the biggest arm, in the history of baseball. You’ve got guys who saw ‘Rapid Robert’ Feller, Ryne Duren, Rex Barney, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax…and everybody says it was Dalko. You can debate 2-10 in any fashion that you want, but he’s No. 1. Hall of Famers said it. Earl Weaver said it. Pat Gillick said it.”

Laurila: A lot of people reading this are going to think, “That’s anecdotal; where is the proof?” They’re going to doubt that Dalkowski ever threw that hard.

Vikander: “Well, right now we’ve got 108.1 on Nolan Ryan’s release point on a fastball, so we’re asking people, credibly, to give us two miles an hour. That’s not that big a stretch. I went down to ASMI, in Birmingham, Alabama — they are the consultants for Major League Baseball on all things kinematic in the sequencing and energy production for arms — and spent a few days. I was with seven PhDs from MIT, and they were all telling me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But then on the third day, everybody came around. They said, ‘That theory that you have proposed, Brian, doesn’t guarantee anything, but it does put forward the possibility that this guy could have been in that rare air and actually done it.’

“It’s a shame that we don’t have any video of Dalkowski to see what he was doing. I can guess what he was doing with his mechanics, but we don’t have anything to look at, and we’ll probably never find it. But there’s no question in my mind that if everybody is saying ‘hardest thrower of all time,’ that does give you a leg to stand on. Maybe it’s Long John Silver’s leg, but there was clearly something different going on with this guy. One other caveat: I believe that he was throwing this kind of gas pre-1960, not post-1960. After a time, [his velocity] began to taper off, but in that 1958-1960 period, he was really launching it.”

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 25, 2020 at 09:40 AM | 50 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: steve dalkowski

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Barnaby Jones Posted: November 25, 2020 at 01:39 PM (#5991117)
The error bars on that 108.1 have got to be huge. I don't believe that for a second.
   2. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 25, 2020 at 01:42 PM (#5991118)
That's anecdotal; where is the proof?
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 25, 2020 at 02:33 PM (#5991123)
The error bars on that 108.1 have got to be huge. I don't believe that for a second.

It's a measurement thing. The 100.9 MPH that Ryan was clocked at BITD was measuring the speed as the ball neared home plate. The 108.1 would be 50 feet away, where he released it. The deceleration calculation is just math.
   4. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 25, 2020 at 03:56 PM (#5991138)
It's a measurement thing. The 100.9 MPH that Ryan was clocked at BITD was measuring the speed as the ball neared home plate. The 108.1 would be 50 feet away, where he released it. The deceleration calculation is just math.


Is that correct? Does every fastball slow down by 7-8% in 50-55 feet? So is Chapman releasing the ball at 110mph and it's crossing the plate at 102mph? Every 1 inning, 98mph flame throwing reliever has the ball leaving his hand at 105mph or so?

I'm not trolling you mate, I'm generally curious. I would not have figured the deceleration would be that much in only 50 odd feet, but I could definitely be wrong.

Where is that Joy calculus guy when we need him, isn't he a uni maths professor?
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 25, 2020 at 04:09 PM (#5991143)
Is that correct? Does every fastball slow down by 7-8% in 50-55 feet? So is Chapman releasing the ball at 110mph and it's crossing the plate at 102mph? Every 1 inning, 98mph flame throwing reliever has the ball leaving his hand at 105mph or so?

I'm not trolling you mate, I'm generally curious. I would not have figured the deceleration would be that much in only 50 odd feet, but I could definitely be wrong.

Where is that Joy calculus guy when we need him, isn't he a uni maths professor?


Yes. from what I've read, a 95 MPH FB slows about 1 MPH every 5 feet.

-measure-of-a-fastball-has-changed-over-the-years/

Today's 98 MPH RPs are releasing the ball at 98 MPH. Statcast measures the ball at release. The ball is crossing the plate around 88 MPH.

The measurement back in the 70's was much closer to the plate. If today's 98 MPH RP was pitching in 1980, he would be a 90 MPH RP.

If Ryan and the other hardest throwers of that era were pitching today, they be throwing 105 MPH+ like the top guys today.
   6. RJ in TO Posted: November 25, 2020 at 04:10 PM (#5991145)
Here's an analysis on it, which seems to state a loss of about 10 mph on a 90 mph fastball. Please note I have checked exactly none of the physics or math.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 25, 2020 at 04:15 PM (#5991150)
Here's an analysis on it, which seems to state a loss of about 10 mph on a 90 mph fastball. Please note I have checked exactly none of the physics or math.

I will waive my Coke since you provided an independent source :-0
   8. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 25, 2020 at 04:47 PM (#5991169)
#5 and 6, thanks for the info.

Always good to learn new stuff at my age.
   9. McCoy Posted: November 25, 2020 at 08:17 PM (#5991201)
The problem of course is that Nolan's clocked speed isn't really as exact as a decimal point would make it nor do we know the exact place it was measured at.

As to Dalkowski there is something of a great white buffalo to him. He's a "tragic" case and he makes a good story. Baseball has always had trouble telling the truth when fiction was so much more interesting. He was fast and he failed in an interesting manner. BITD saying Dalko was the fastest was like showing your baseball insider bona fides.
   10. McCoy Posted: November 25, 2020 at 08:22 PM (#5991203)
The supposedly fastest pitch ever happened in the 9th inning and Nolan was never able to match it. That suggests the measurement was not accurate.
   11. Tin Angel Posted: November 25, 2020 at 08:45 PM (#5991205)
This guy was on the Effectively Wild podcast a while ago, and while I get that he's trying to sell his book, he really has nothing to go on (and is quite pretentious/sure of himself while trying to do so). As in the excerpt he had not one shred of evidence but what people who saw Dalkowski throw (20-30 years earlier) said. "That theory that you have proposed, Brian, doesn’t guarantee anything, but it does put forward the possibility that this guy could have been in that rare air and actually done it." That about says it all.
   12. The Duke Posted: November 25, 2020 at 09:00 PM (#5991207)
Does evolution over time impact speed? Feller was one of the great hard throwers and that was 60-70 years ago. Ryan was decades ago. In some areas like 100 meter dash, evolution and training have led to a new level. Is it true for throwing a baseball? If it is, there’s no way he threw 110. If it’s a random event and an amazing arm just shows up every so often, then maybe.

I watch this Jordan hicks throw for the Redbirds and wonder if he will amp it up to 106-108 range now.
   13. The Honorable Ardo Posted: November 25, 2020 at 09:35 PM (#5991213)
I've seen Aroldis Chapman throwing 103, as both a Red and a Cub, while seated right behind the netting at home plate. I can believe Dalkowski was *as fast* (especially since the physical descriptions - long, lean, strong legged - match well) but not a whole order of magnitude faster.

When I see people throw 97-98, I think, "I can't hit that, but I accept that major league hitters can." I saw Jonathan Lucroy have an extended at-bat against Chapman, fouling off several pitches, and I was astonished. It seemed, up close, like Chapman's fastballs were faster than human reaction time.
   14. Nasty Nate Posted: November 25, 2020 at 10:01 PM (#5991217)
Willy Wags in '03 might be the fastest I've seen in person.
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 25, 2020 at 10:14 PM (#5991219)
Does evolution over time impact speed? Feller was one of the great hard throwers and that was 60-70 years ago. Ryan was decades ago. In some areas like 100 meter dash, evolution and training have led to a new level. Is it true for throwing a baseball? If it is, there’s no way he threw 110. If it’s a random event and an amazing arm just shows up every so often, then maybe.

Humans haven't evolved in <100 years. Max velocity is limited by the strength of human ligaments; throw much more than 100 MPH (near home plate) and the pitcher's arm will fall apart.

The top velocity today is likely very similar to what it's always been: 100 MPH (measured near home plate). The 104-106 stuff is measurement bias.

What is true is that far more pitchers can throw 95-100 MPH (plate measurement) than could in the past. This is likely mostly due to changes in pitching philosophy, e.g. going all out on every pitch, not worrying about going deep in games, taking more time between pitches, and the abundance of short relievers who never plan to throw over 20 pitches on a given day.
   16. Howie Menckel Posted: November 25, 2020 at 10:16 PM (#5991221)
There's no proof - but I wouldn't entirely dismiss the amount of anecdotal here.

I remember when Tony Gwynn coached Stephen Strasburg at San Diego State, and reporters questioned Gwynn on whether the lack of matchups against elite prospects might be reason to wonder if Strasburg was "the real deal."

Gwynn, a pretty affable guy from accounts I've read, comes across as genuinely perplexed by their partial skepticism at what he was telling them.

meaning, Tony Gwynn knows exactly what a stud MLB pitcher looks like. he sold me at that time, and he was right.

and some of these flamethrowers might be, too.

of course, in theory Gwynn could have just been talking up his guy as a favor (though it didn't come across that way), and the flamethrowers in some cases might just like the Dalkowski narrative.

but elite athletes also are hyper-competitive, as we have discussed. I don't see all of them being so deferential to someone else at their own expense. (some, okay.)

(I have mentioned before interviewing Lenny Wilkens in Albany the day Wilt Chamberlain died. he was very gracious in his remarks. then I mentioned "there was even that one year he decided to lead the league in assists - and he did!" well, Lenny's competitive fire was all over his face as he struggled not to demean a man's legacy on the day of his death. but I'd have bet a million dollars right at that moment as to who finished second to Wilt that season in such a subjective category. I guessed it - and just now, so did you.)
   17. Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute Posted: November 26, 2020 at 01:47 AM (#5991237)
In some areas like 100 meter dash, evolution and training have led to a new level.


My understanding - and I have no sources on me at the moment - is that the vast majority of that continual improvement in sports like running, swimming, etc. (sports that are simple feats of athleticism) is from improvements in equipment and facilities. Better shoes and running tracks, more aerodynamic swimsuits, etc. Only a small amount of the improvement is real, and even that is due to training and technique and nutrition.

I don't think athletes today are "naturally" better - genetics hasn't changed. Jesse Owens, if he was born today, would be capable of being a top athlete. Bob Feller (or whoever the hardest-throwing pitcher was back then) could be capable of throwing 100 mph, even if they weren't back then. And maybe they were...or at least closer than we think.
   18. McCoy Posted: November 26, 2020 at 07:02 AM (#5991241)
If Jesse Owens was born today he'd most certainly would not be an elite athlete. I've seen hours old babies and I can take them in a foot race.
   19. . Posted: November 26, 2020 at 07:53 AM (#5991242)
As to Dalkowski there is something of a great white buffalo to him. He's a "tragic" case and he makes a good story. Baseball has always had trouble telling the truth when fiction was so much more interesting. He was fast and he failed in an interesting manner. BITD saying Dalko was the fastest was like showing your baseball insider bona fides.


It's very akin to the basketball "playground legend" -- the Earl "The Goat" Managault types who are right there with the best guys in the NBA, if not even better, but could "never catch a break." Something in our psyches must yearn for this archetype; it bears a resemblance to Rousseau's noble savage, unsullied or even damaged by the demands of organization.
   20. Brian White Posted: November 26, 2020 at 10:00 AM (#5991247)
I've seen Aroldis Chapman throwing 103, as both a Red and a Cub, while seated right behind the netting at home plate. I can believe Dalkowski was *as fast* (especially since the physical descriptions - long, lean, strong legged - match well) but not a whole order of magnitude faster.


I don't think anyone is arguing that Dalkowsi threw 1030 MPH. </pedantry>
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 26, 2020 at 12:14 PM (#5991257)
I don't think anyone is arguing that Dalkowsi threw 1030 MPH. </pedantry>

Well, if you put him in a supersonic aircraft, like the Concorde, and have him throw forward, you might get there.
   22. depletion Posted: November 26, 2020 at 02:47 PM (#5991264)
There's no proof - but I wouldn't entirely dismiss the amount of anecdotal here.

You want proof? I'll give you proof!
   23. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 26, 2020 at 10:13 PM (#5991280)
Where is that Joy calculus guy when we need him, isn't he a uni maths professor?


Oh hi! So this would be a physics problem, but it would reduce to a differential equation. But the equation would depend on properties of the ball- how heavy and aerodynamic it is, so experimental data is really needed.
   24. Ron J Posted: November 26, 2020 at 11:25 PM (#5991281)
#23 Could be wrong but I think those things are covered in the Physics of Baseball. Been an uncomfortably long time since I've read it though.
   25. depletion Posted: November 26, 2020 at 11:43 PM (#5991282)
Being an electro-optics guy in my youth, I'm prejudiced, but I'd suggest an infrared laser with a big enough beam width to hit the ball during its entire path. Pulse it rapidly enough, 1 MHz gives about 45 microns of travel between pulses for a 100 mph ball. Radar works better on metal targets that animal or vegetable ones. You end up with about 415,000 samples.
   26. Hank Gillette Posted: November 27, 2020 at 01:08 AM (#5991288)
My understanding - and I have no sources on me at the moment - is that the vast majority of that continual improvement in sports like running, swimming, etc. (sports that are simple feats of athleticism) is from improvements in equipment and facilities. Better shoes and running tracks, more aerodynamic swimsuits, etc. Only a small amount of the improvement is real, and even that is due to training and technique and nutrition.


I’ve read that as well. The major improvement in the short races is from allowing the sprinters to use starting blocks. Back in the old days, the tracks were made from cinders, the the athletes had to dig holes in the track to start from.

Pools have added anti-wave technology, wider lanes, and swimmers wear swimsuits that reduce drag. I have to imagine that training has gotten more intensive over time. Johnny Weissmuller set a record for the 400 meter freestyle in 1923. A woman set a world record lower than Weissmuller’s time in 1956.
   27. Tin Angel Posted: November 27, 2020 at 01:13 AM (#5991289)
#25 - Agreed, but at some point you would also need to divide the cotangent into the hypotenuse. Obviously.
   28. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: November 27, 2020 at 07:12 AM (#5991291)
Does evolution over time impact speed?

This is an excellent question. It is a well-understood phenomenon that the rotation of the earth is slowing. Probably less well known/understood is that time itself could be slowing down.

Of course, the mile itself has expanded over time, once measuring a solid 5000 Roman feet prior to Parliament's meddling in the 16th century.
   29. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 27, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5991318)
Probably less well known/understood is that time itself could be slowing down.
Oh, I think it’s very well understood, at least to the extent that 2020 has lasted about 17 of what we are used to calling “years.”
   30. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: November 27, 2020 at 08:37 PM (#5991362)
My understanding - and I have no sources on me at the moment - is that the vast majority of that continual improvement in sports like running, swimming, etc. (sports that are simple feats of athleticism) is from improvements in equipment and facilities. Better shoes and running tracks, more aerodynamic swimsuits, etc. Only a small amount of the improvement is real, and even that is due to training and technique and nutrition.

I don't think athletes today are "naturally" better - genetics hasn't changed. Jesse Owens, if he was born today, would be capable of being a top athlete. Bob Feller (or whoever the hardest-throwing pitcher was back then) could be capable of throwing 100 mph, even if they weren't back then. And maybe they were...or at least closer than we think.
I think this is an oversell, perhaps wildly so. In 1960, a guy named Bill Milliken won the 200m breaststroke at the Olympics. In 2008, my sister beat him by 6 seconds... and finished 25th at the US trials. That ain't swimsuits.
   31. Howie Menckel Posted: November 27, 2020 at 08:44 PM (#5991363)
to be fair, beating Mulliken by 6 seconds in 2008... I mean, he was 68 years old by then.

#ducksforcover
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 27, 2020 at 09:49 PM (#5991365)
I think this is an oversell, perhaps wildly so. In 1960, a guy named Bill Milliken won the 200m breaststroke at the Olympics. In 2008, my sister beat him by 6 seconds... and finished 25th at the US trials. That ain't swimsuits.

Then it's training or technique. People from 1960 are still alive there's no physical difference, certainly nothing close to bridge the athletic gap between men and women.
   33. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 28, 2020 at 03:59 AM (#5991374)

Then it's training or technique. People from 1960 are still alive there's no physical difference, certainly nothing close to bridge the athletic gap between men and women.


I agree. Swimming records have been dropping precipitously in more modern times. I dont think you'll see that sort of discrepancy in sprinting or long distance running. And women themselves have made tremendous gains in the past two generations. A lot less women were encouraged to play sports back then. So comparing swim records and female swim records at that seems apples to oranges. (insert mandatory story when woman were not allowed to do certain long distance runs)

Plus breastroke. YOu cant find a more convoluted motion than that. It would not surprise me if the rules on what is legal in breast stroke have changed in 60 years. I remember a guy from Scotland I think it was david wilkie doing the breast stroke circa 1976 and i think he would stroke twice before taking a breath. Maybe that's de rigeur nowadays, but I think it likely breast stroke has seen many changes in technique.

A long time ago I was studying the effect of the cinder tracks that Jesse Owens was running and I figure he was probably less than one stride behind Carl Lewis. (its like 10.2 sec vs 9.85 before you adjust) And at that point in time, Lewis was thought to be one of the best all time. So all these guys Carl Lewis, Owens, Donovan Bailey, my guess is that among the elite sprinters there isnt more than a hairs difference between them.

BUt Usain Bolt OTOH. He's even greater still. You can see it visually when he's so far ahead of the other guys. My guess is that he's the perfect storm of having world class speed + unusual body type. He's probably like some once in 50 year freak.
   34. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2020 at 06:22 AM (#5991377)
The Ted Talk and researcher that makes the argument that it is virtually all equipment relies heavily on estimates of precise measurements.
   35. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: November 28, 2020 at 03:01 PM (#5991431)
People from 1960 are still alive there's no physical difference
You can't mean that. High school football teams today are as big or bigger than NFL teams from the 60's.
   36. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2020 at 03:42 PM (#5991434)
#35 The big change in the NFL is big men who can move. Yeah you had Deacon Jones in the 60s but that's about it. Now we have quarterbacks (with mobility) who are bigger than Jones.

To be clear, Jones would still be an extreme combination of size and speed. More probably a linebacker these days though. But Jones was kind of alone back in the day.

I'm old enough to remember linemen under 230 and the occasional fullback under 200. And 270 was huge back then.
   37. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: November 28, 2020 at 03:51 PM (#5991435)
Swimming rules are always changing. Breaststroke now looks almost nothing like the way they swam it in 1960. Prior to around 1990, swimming backstroke you actually had to touch the wall on your turn and stay on your back. The rule changed to where you could flip over while taking your last stroke and do a freestyle turn. Just that has probably dropped times by half a second. Then around the same time, it was discovered that you are faster dolphin kicking underwater than you are swimming on the surface, and folks started swimming almost the entire length of the 100 backstroke underwater. Soon the butterflyers realized the could do that too. Prior to this everyone took two or 3 kicks and got to the surface. Records were crushed and the the rules were changed to a 15 meter limit underwater per lap. Everyone at the olympic level is incredibly adept at the underwater part now in back, butterfly and freestyle. It is a large part of what made Phelps great. Plus, every so often some like Phelps comes around who is just better than everyone. But, their advantage doesn't last long, as everyone else figures out what they are doing different and copies them.
   38. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2020 at 04:52 PM (#5991437)
It helped Phelps as well to have a freakish body built for the swimming events.
   39. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: November 28, 2020 at 04:52 PM (#5991439)
The big change in the NFL is big men who can move steroids.
   40. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2020 at 05:47 PM (#5991441)
#39 Nonsense. Everybody knows steroids were a baseball thing. It's just speed evolution. There was a previously unknow niche for 270+ pound men who can really move and it's been filled.
   41. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 29, 2020 at 07:04 AM (#5991467)


The big change in the NFL is big men who can move steroids.


I dont disagree with what's being said but I would like to add another. NFL rosters were greatly expanded at some pt. in mid century. In the 1930s rosters were often 33 or so. Most players played two ways which requires a lot of stamina. Bednarik was the last major player to go both ways and he retired about 1960. WIth huge rosters now, everyone plays one side of the ball and gets a breather. But not only that a lot of guys are specialist, they only come in on third down or only 1st and 2nd.

This sort of thing is another reason it has allowed freakish huge players to play, they dont have the same stamina requirements in the early days of football.
   42. McCoy Posted: November 29, 2020 at 07:39 AM (#5991468)
The rule changes also turned football from a rugby like game to, well, American football.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 29, 2020 at 01:06 PM (#5991489)
You can't mean that. High school football teams today are as big or bigger than NFL teams from the 60's.

I do. See [39]. The basic physiology hasn't changed. It's the old joke: NFL linemen used to play at 240 lbs, and retire and balloon to 300 lbs. Now they play at 300 lbs., and retire and shrink to 240 lbs. Human evolution has zero to do with it.

This sort of thing is another reason it has allowed freakish huge players to play, they dont have the same stamina requirements in the early days of football.

True, but those freakishly huge players aren't born, they're engineered. No good athlete, who's engaging in strenuous training, would be 320 lbs. without the intent to be that large.
   44. Ron J Posted: November 29, 2020 at 02:01 PM (#5991503)
#41 I grew up watching the CFL. In the late 60s they still featured 32 man rosters with 190 pound fullback/linebackers. And guys like Alan Ford -- backed up every offensive skill position as well as defensive back and was sometimes forced to play linebacker and kick.
   45. Rally Posted: November 29, 2020 at 06:39 PM (#5991528)
No freaking way this is evolution. Evolution doesn’t work that fast. Football players are bigger because of some combination of diet and training. Take the kids of 1950 in a time machine, give them the same conditions today’s athletes have and they’d be bigger too.
   46. BDC Posted: November 29, 2020 at 07:14 PM (#5991530)
I dont think you'll see that sort of discrepancy in sprinting or long distance running

And to second Rally's point, the progression of track and field records is interesting. The records for sprints and long distances are recent; pole vault was actually broken (twice) earlier this year and is the most dependent on technology.

But the world records at middle distances (1-3K) are all from 20+ years ago, the long and high jump records 25+, the throwing records mostly 30 years old or more. If human athletic ability were evolving within single lifetimes, you would not see that stasis.

It's interesting to speculate why certain records get broken and others don't for long periods - likely some combination of technique, technology, and concentrated effort. When Roger Bannister ran a sub-4-minute mile, he was on a methodical quest to do so. But probably nobody is going to do that for the triple jump, which is now a 25-year-old record.
   47. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: November 30, 2020 at 08:55 AM (#5991568)
No freaking way this is evolution. Evolution doesn’t work that fast. Football players are bigger because of some combination of diet and training. Take the kids of 1950 in a time machine, give them the same conditions today’s athletes have and they’d be bigger too.
Diet and training absolutely explain the size differences between now and 50 years ago if you're talking about weight. As far as I know, diet and weight training don't make you taller. It is common for high schools to go 6'7", 6'4", 6'1", 6'3", 6'5" across the offensive line - that wasn't close to true in the 80's when I was in H.S. Even that recently, guards were 5'10" fat guys. Same with basketball - 4 of my starting 5 were 6'0" or under with a 6'7" gump in the middle. Now, anybody who isn't 6'4" better have point-guard skills.

And no, a new species hasn't been created so we can probably put "evolution" to bed.
   48. Rally Posted: November 30, 2020 at 11:05 AM (#5991596)
I didn't pay much attention to the football team in my HS (also 1980s), but the basketball team had a 6'10 center and forwards who were 6-4 to 6-6.

A few years back I worked in an office with a staff around 25-30 people, and we had one guy at 6-6, another 6-4 who had the build of an NFL tight end, and 2 more at 6-3.
   49. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 30, 2020 at 12:26 PM (#5991607)

Diet and training absolutely explain the size differences between now and 50 years ago if you're talking about weight. As far as I know, diet and weight training don't make you taller.

"How much variation (difference between individuals) in height is attributable to genetic effects and how much to nutritional effects?" The short answer to this question is that about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition.

...

The most important nutrient for final height is protein in childhood. Minerals, in particular calcium, and vitamins A and D also influence height.


Link.
   50. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 30, 2020 at 12:29 PM (#5991609)

There's also probably some selection effect going on. Maybe the 6'4 and 6'6 guys played other sports or other positions in the 80s, but now they're being recruited to play on the offensive line.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNationals, Brad Hand agree to one-year, $10.5 million deal, per reports
(3 - 8:44am, Jan 25)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(701 - 8:40am, Jan 25)
Last: spivey 2

NewsblogHall of Famer Henry "Hank" Aaron dies at 86.
(145 - 8:31am, Jan 25)
Last: TomH

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(1019 - 8:23am, Jan 25)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogNY Mets GM acknowledges sending unsolicited, explicit images while working for Cubs
(184 - 7:14am, Jan 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogSources: New York Yankees acquire pitcher Jameson Taillon from Pittsburgh Pirates for four prospects
(23 - 6:54am, Jan 25)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogBraves re-sign Pablo Sandoval
(2 - 12:30am, Jan 25)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogAaron’s death prompts call to change name: Braves to Hammers
(41 - 10:40pm, Jan 24)
Last: Der-K's emotional investment is way up

NewsblogNationals' Ryan Zimmerman: Rejoining Nationals for 2021
(4 - 8:35pm, Jan 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT - 2020 NFL thread
(14 - 6:41pm, Jan 24)
Last: SoSH U at work

Newsblog2021 BBHOF Tracker Summary and Leaderboard – Baseball Hall of Fame Vote Tracker
(579 - 4:05pm, Jan 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogHall of Fame pitcher Don Sutton dies at 75
(59 - 3:55pm, Jan 24)
Last: yest

NewsblogMASN cutting on-air talent, reportedly slashing pregame and postgame shows for Orioles and Nationals
(12 - 2:23pm, Jan 24)
Last: bfan

NewsblogSource: Jurickson Profar, San Diego Padres agree to 3-year, $21 million deal
(14 - 2:18pm, Jan 24)
Last: Tom Goes to the Ballpark

NewsblogGarrett Richards, Boston Red Sox reach 1-year, $10 million deal, sources say
(5 - 12:38pm, Jan 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

Page rendered in 0.4783 seconds
48 querie(s) executed