wade

Who is that with the spiked (or knuckle) curve? Cashner?

I can't convince anyone, so I won't try. If anyone is truly interested, I gave names of professionals that have written on this subject. It is a very interesting topic, but I just won't do it justice, I'm afraid.

I agree, you have the most growth potential your first year of training and eating properly. Moreso if you've never touched a weight than if you've lifted in at least some manner.

I would love to read research on it though. Personal fitness, even in extremes, have always been very interesting to me. I listed some names earlier, but Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald are a couple that immediately come to mind. McDonald can be abrasive, but he also backs his stuff up with studies. Are we struggling with semantics? Lean body mass isn't all muscle- lean body mass is everything but fat, right? Splendid Splinter flat out said he didn't think it was all muscle. "Granted I didn't gain '20 lbs of muscles'". I (and I assume abuck) are talking about skeletal muscle, and that's what I don't see going up 20 pounds in 3 months for a 22 year old that's been (presumably) an athlete his whole life. That kind of growth would be amazing in a teenager that also grew a couple of inches taller during the same time. Maybe I shouldn't let that wording aggravate me, but a 20 pound weight gain in 3 months - all muscle -would be the outliest of outliers.

I think if a person was lucky, maybe half could be muscle and that's on the high end. About a half a pound a week of muscle on average is what someone could gain. I only think this because I've read a ton of stuff written by people NOT trying to seperate people from their wallet (i.e., those in the supplement industry) So, that's anectdotal evidence that agrees with what I believe. I agree, I just believe even 80% is too high for that time period. The key is 'still growing'. The guy for the Cubs is 22-23. 18-19 is pretty late for a growth spurt, but doable. Early twenties would be really rare.

As I said, maybe my feeling is wrong. I guess it's the residual paranoia of the steroid era. Calm down. It's not just the steroid era- a guy on the gas could maybe put on 20 pounds in 3 months and it would look good. But even then it wouldn't all be muscle. Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Matt Perryman- if people want to google info on how fast someone can gain muscle, I think those would be good starts. Those guys aren't trying to sell magic supplements.

Unless we know what his body fat% was before and after weight gain, it's impossible to know. Quit being so absolute. He's probably being absolute because any study not related to peddling supplements shows that you cannot gain muscle that fast. Unless you're going through puberty and literally growing. You can gain weight from diet and excercise. You can make a good portion of that weight gain muscle. But it takes longer than three months for 20 pounds of muscle.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/80930-gain-pounds-muscle-months/ This article disagrees with you. Here's another one that disagrees with abuck- http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_program/sports_body_training_muscle_anaconda/anaconda_protocol#2-8211-radical-hypertrophy "Christian gained 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks, and was doing seated overhead presses with 375 pound for 5 cluster reps." Sign me up! hahahaha

I'm guessing you know nothing about this and threw this out there? You'd be amazed what an athlete in his prime can do when their job is to eat correctly and work out and actually do it every single day for an extended period of time. Football players transitioning from high school ball to college ball do this all the time. If you're implying that they are taking something to add the muscle, I'd be curious to know what you believe it to be. They are actively screening for steroid use at this point (obviously) and despite the fact that everyone loves to point the finger at HGH, multiple studies have shown that HGH negligible benefits to athletes. It would be harder for an athlete in their prime to gain 20 pounds of muscle- harder than pretty much anyone else in the world. If they've peaked already than yes. My guess is 6'4 DJ LeMahieu never really pushed himself too much on gaining weight if he was only ever 180 lbs. My point was more of the fact that a 23 year old male can take on a brutal weight lifting regimen and potentially gain 19 lbs of muscle over the course of 4 or 5 months. At least more capably than a 48 year old female. Yes, he'd typically be more capable of adding muscle than an older female, but he still wouldn't be able to add 19 pounds of muscle in 4-5 months. A guy could probably add that much in a year, provided they'd never lifted weights before, or only did so poorly. To clarify my position, please remember I'm talking about muscle gain. People can certainly gain body weight at a much faster clip than they gain muscle weight. 20 pounds of muscle in three months is pretty much impossible without the benefit of puberty, or maybe steroids.

I'm guessing you know nothing about this and threw this out there? You'd be amazed what an athlete in his prime can do when their job is to eat correctly and work out and actually do it every single day for an extended period of time. Football players transitioning from high school ball to college ball do this all the time. If you're implying that they are taking something to add the muscle, I'd be curious to know what you believe it to be. They are actively screening for steroid use at this point (obviously) and despite the fact that everyone loves to point the finger at HGH, multiple studies have shown that HGH negligible benefits to athletes. It would be harder for an athlete in their prime to gain 20 pounds of muscle- harder than pretty much anyone else in the world.

With replay instituted for safe/out calls on the bases, and fair/foul for home runs, how can you argue that the correct outcome can't be "guaranteed"? The NFL may be our best example of replay, and during the Bears-Packers game the expert official in the broadcast booth said that the interception at the end of the first half would clearly have to be overturned, and it wasn't. Safe-out calls at first could conceivably open a can of worms regarding control of the ball vs. toe touching the bag, etc. While the Gallaraga play looked obvious, not all would be, in my opinion.

Miggy's been great since his extension with the Tigers and will likely be great for the next few years. But, I admit he doesn't quite fit your definition since he was a 3B at the time of signing, and not as big then as he is now. So, in short, nevermind.

I know the Yankees are always a free agent destination, but they're already headed for a situation where they essentially have multiple DHs making big coin in the coming years. Or at least those guys should be DHing.

Gotta go against the grain here. I like the trade for the Cubs.

I want to know the two yahoos who voted for BJ Surhoff. One of the votes was from ESPN news editor Barry Stanton. edited to add- Stanton also voted for Tino Martinez and Don Mattingly.

At least one writer has linked Bagwell because he "looks" like he did steroids. Jayson Stark recently wrote about how difficult the steroid era will be as far as the HOF. One thing that makes it tough for some voters (or an excuse for some, depending on how you look at it) is the 'character' clause. Voters are instructed to weigh a player's integrity, sportsmanship, character. That certainly opens the door to keep out those that voters feel cheated. But the Bagwell situation shows that same door may let in some superficial judging by the voters.

Kind words may entice me to post more.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/of-bob-feller-and-a-wartime-baseball-meeting/ That's an article involving Feller by a long time lurker/then-poster/then-lurker-again.

oh my god

Didn't know you could trade away draft picks... Haha. Probably not what he meant, but another example of a lack of clarity.

of Ricciardi- "He never made the playoffs, a difficult feat to accomplish when you are in the same division as the Yankees and Boston Red Sox." I had to read that three times and then the next passage before I could figure out what he was saying. At first it read like this - not making the playoffs in the AL East is difficult.

Saw this thread bumped up today and thought I'd add this link. It's about my great-uncle (by marriage) facing Bob Feller in a pickup game at an island in the Pacific during W.W.II. http://www.baseballdailydigest.com/blogs/2009/10/14/an-unlikely-confrontation/

Hendry's aversion to arbitration hearings is really stupid.

I'd wager he didn't drink before today's game.

Miggy is one of the most valuable players in the game, but being drunk as hell at 8:00 a.m. and still not having been to bed with a game 11 hours away seems worthy of some harsh criticism. Or, I guess I feel the criticism is not idiotic, at least. Every game counts as much as another throughout the season, but the Tigers' position going into last weekend was clear- win two of three and no matter what they would make the playoffs. Given the circumstances, those games did mean more, in my opinion. (edit) just saw that you're in Detroit- I suppose many want to run him out of town, etc. but I still stand by my point- those games were of highest importance.