These People are Scientists?

I was watching this show called "Sports Science", and one segment was supposed to "debunk" the "myth" that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in professional sports. They brought on some pretty blond softball player who says she begs to differ. (I can smell the PC grrl power BS from here, but let's check the methodology.) 

So, this is how this bunch of scientists decide to "disprove" the myth.

1. The more force a pitch generates, the harder it is to hit, so they compare the impact force of some college dude's baseball pitch and blondie's softball pitch. The 95 mph baseball pitch, thrown from 63 feet with a single forward step motion, generates 2,400 lbs of force. The 70 mph "bowling motion" softball pitch (accompanied by a short hop forward) thrown from 40 feet away shatters the plate. Therefore, softball pitch harder to hit.

2. A baseball prospect who usually hits .310 had a harder time hitting the softball pitch than he did the baseball pitch.

3. They confirmed the finding of the second step by studying the motions of either pitcher. A baseball pitcher throws high to low from a further distance, so the baseball hitter's eye is able to adjust. The baseball hitter had a harder time adjusting to the rising trajectory of a softball pitch.

Ergo, softball pitches are harder to hit than pitches of pro baseball pitchers.

Any amateur philosopher can see the holes in the argument put forth by the "scientists".

First, the force impact of a pitch is not the most important aspect in making a pitch hittable. If that were true, then every pitch would be a fastball and all you'll need is a strong arm. No, it is unpredictability that makes a pitch hard to hit, which eplains the need for the pitcher to throw a variety of pitches in a game. In fact, a pitch that generates greater impact is easier to hit out of the ball park if hit solidly. So, the first method cannot contribute to proving the thesis. All it proves is that an object travelling at 70 mph covering a shorter distance will generate more impact force than an object travelling further at 95 mph. The conclusion does not prove the thesis.

Second, the baseball hitter had a hard time hitting the softball pitch precisely because it was unpredictable for him. A baseball hitter is used to hitting baseball pitches, which is why he adjusts better from high to low than low to high and has a reaction time geared towards the length of time it takes a baseball pitch to cross the plate. The premise of the question is that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in pro-sports. It assumes that the baseball hitter's job is the hardest in all of sports, and his job is to hit baseball pitches By using a baseball hitter to hit a softball pitch, you skew the experiment because you have a baseball hitter not doing his job, which is to hit baseball pitches. This point is proven inadvertedly by these scientists by their display of how different a softball pitch is to a baseball pitch. It's like asking a tennis player to hit a cricket throw, or asking a bowler to hit a three-pointer. By using an experiment design that is tantamount to comparing an apple with an orange, the experiment's results are useless to the thesis. The science has been used to prove,,,nothing.

A more sensible experiment design would have been to have a person with no eperience hitting a baseball or a softball and having him try to hit either pitch.

After the segment, these amateur hour clowns have the gall to say that "science" proved their point, where nothing they did could even remotely be tantamount to well-thought science. (Don't get me started on their stupid experiment design for debunking the "myth" that athletes shouldn't have sex before a competition.) One of the most important aspects of science is determining the means by which a hypothesis could be derived and tested, and for this, the scientist needs some philosophy. I find it sad seeing the philosophical dunderheads of "Sports Science" wield science like four year old swinging a wiffle bat.

Next time, leave the science to actual scientists.