Wmlb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macker

If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, how could what you said earlier be true, specifically: "Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics."

Womens baseball, for the reasons you cited, is not on par with mens baseball. It's not even on par with Single A baseball. If any women are talented enough to play pro baseball, I'm behind them all the way. But they are a long ways from having a womens MLB. No high horse about it. Simple facts.

---

I'm talking amateur ball here. I'm not talking the minors and majors, because women don't have that... and we don't even have women's high school or collegiate teams. As I've already stated, women's baseball is still at the amateur level with far less opportunities than men have, yet there are plenty of women who can and do compete on men's amateur teams and there are women's teams that can beat men's amateur teams. Bringing Single A into the picture, or even college baseball, is a moot point, because women don't have collegiate baseball or pro baseball opportunities. Some women who play today (very few) have played high school ball. Most of the girls who have had the opportunity to play on their boys' high school teams are still in high school.

Of course women are a ways away from having a WMLB. No one has argued against that here. We have stated on here many times before in other threads that in order to have a solid women's pro league, many other things need to happen first, including creating more girls' youth leagues, making baseball a sport for girls in high school, making baseball a varsity collegiate sport for women, and developing some sort of minor league system... perhaps with some of the women's amateur teams that exist now.

The person who started this thread asked if the reason there isn't a WMLB is because of the strength issue. The purpose of my post was to point out that that isn't the reason there isn't a WMLB, and I stated some of the main reasons why there isn't. I went on to say (supporting my statement that the strength issue isn't a reason for not having a WMLB) that there are plenty of women around the country who play on men's teams and in men's leagues who don't have any problem with doing so and being successful, and there are women's teams that could beat some men's teams because they are better fundamentally and mechanically and that the strength issue doesn't come into play all the time. I'm talking about amateur baseball here, not about collegiate baseball or minor league ball or MLB.

You stated something to the fact that saying that the women who can play against/amongst men and the women's teams that can beat men's teams are the cream of the crop for women and therefore, it isn't valid to say they can beat men. You stated it as if saying the best female players of today are pro players or something, and therefore it isn't fair to compare them to the average "Joe" who plays. Like I've already stated, 99.99% of us female players have never played high school baseball or collegiate baseball. Most of us play less than 15 games per summer, which I know is far less than what most men's leagues play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utility07

Does it go to 11? Because at that age, the girls are becoming women, and the boys arent going to become men for 2 more years. Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier due to hormones in our foods, and the boys dont seem to be effected as much.

---

Utility 07, but I just have to answer your post - that is after I get all the drink off my screen that I splurted out when I read your post. Let me say that I know this is a baseball forum, but the science that is being used as reasoning is false science.

The thing that got me going was your comment about hormones in the food. For starters you are mistaken on a few counts. The fact that girls hit it earlier than boys has nothing to do with hormones in the food, but rather hormones in the body and the time clock that's been there since time immemorial. It's just the way it is - always has been - always will be. Reaching puberty in girls is far more closely related to weight. Here in Australia where we use metric weights, we say "she'll hit puberty when she hits 50kg" that's about 110lb. It's almost invariably correct. If children, are eating more and exercising less, they will hit that 'magic' mark earlier than in the past. It has nothing to do with hormones coming from the food. Boys' switch for puberty is not so much weight related, and will always be later than the girls in any case.

Because this is a baseball forum rather than a dietry/scientific one, I'll leave the issue of whether or not there are hormones in certain foods and the effect they have or don't have on the people who eat them, other than to suggest that Utility 07 reads up on the issue before using it to support his argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baseball Mum

Utility 07, but I just have to answer your post - that is after I get all the drink off my screen that I splurted out when I read your post. Let me say that I know this is a baseball forum, but the science that is being used as reasoning is false science.

The thing that got me going was your comment about hormones in the food. For starters you are mistaken on a few counts. The fact that girls hit it earlier than boys has nothing to do with hormones in the food, but rather hormones in the body and the time clock that's been there since time immemorial. It's just the way it is - always has been - always will be. Reaching puberty in girls is far more closely related to weight. Here in Australia where we use metric weights, we say "she'll hit puberty when she hits 50kg" that's about 110lb. It's almost invariably correct. If children, are eating more and exercising less, they will hit that 'magic' mark earlier than in the past. It has nothing to do with hormones coming from the food. Boys' switch for puberty is not so much weight related, and will always be later than the girls in any case.

Because this is a baseball forum rather than a dietry/scientific one, I'll leave the issue of whether or not there are hormones in certain foods and the effect they have or don't have on the people who eat them, other than to suggest that Utility 07 reads up on the issue before using it to support his argument.

---

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freddy

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

---

If the hormones in the food of today are causing girls to develop faster, why isn't it affecting boys and making them develop faster, too? Are the hormones partial to only affecting girls in making them develop faster than they used to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo

If the hormones in the food of today are causing girls to develop faster, why isn't it affecting boys and making them develop faster, too? Are the hormones partial to only affecting girls in making them develop faster than they used to?

---

They did not discuss boys/men but I can only guess we are made differently:D
Maybe thats why women are taking over the business world. New generation hey wait, maybe we should send our food to the middle East in 15yrs the women will run the countries!!!!!!! No bombs just hormonal food for women!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freddy

They did not discuss boys/men but I can only guess we are made differently:D
Maybe thats why women are taking over the business world. New generation hey wait, maybe we should send our food to the middle East in 15yrs the women will run the countries!!!!!!! No bombs just hormonal food for women!!

---

We are made differently? Other than having some variations on a few body parts and having different levels of the same hormones and having a difference in core strength... generally speaking... we aren't that different from one another. Do you really believe that? Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :faint: :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freddy

His question was simple enough to understand and mine will be also.
You are making a statement without hard proof. I look at the girl of today VS the girls I went to school with. There is no doubt that the girls are developing way faster, as a matter of fact I heard a Dr on a show saying that girls are reaching puberty 1.5yr's earlier then 15yrs ago. He said they were eating BETTER food with more hormones which is the cause for the change. If you have somewhere I can read different please post it as I’m not afraid to be proven wrong.

---

A quick look for an article has turned up this one. Of course there are gaps in it, though I'm not going to go looking further right now. It is a reasoned article and the science is quite sound. http://www.livescience.com/health/07...d_puberty.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baseball Mum

A quick look for an article has turned up this one. Of course there are gaps in it, though I'm not going to go looking further right now. It is a reasoned article and the science is quite sound. http://www.livescience.com/health/07...d_puberty.html

---

I read the article, and he touches on all the points without pointing one in particular. All I know is when I was in school you new who the heavy chester girls were all 2 of them. Now my daughters are 13 and 17 and I cant believe that I missed this developement in High School as I have 20/20 vision. Whatever it is a change has occured for the better or worse doesnt change a thing in my world, as I dont judge on looks alone. I married a teacher:D Have a nice evening

:crazy :waving

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo

We are made differently? Other than having some variations on a few body parts and having different levels of the same hormones and having a difference in core strength... generally speaking... we aren't that different from one another. Do you really believe that? Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :faint: :shrug:

---

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freddy

:crazy :waving

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

---

No... we're not two completely different animals. We are two different genders of the same species, and we have way more in common than most people think. Our differences are about variations, not complete differences in kind. Talk to experts on it, and they will back me up with what I'm saying.

It's social conditioning that makes us seem so different, and social conditioning is a bunch of crap. It's what creates the status quo, and that has to do with how individual minds think, how people act and react, is based on insecurity, etc. It has nothing to do with gender... meaning, gender doesn't create it or determine who likes what or who does what. The social conditioning of people has been what determines most things in our culture/society. Gender doesn't determine them, contrary to popular belief.

Anyway, when girls or women beat boys or guys at something, why do people have to dig for excuses for why it has happened? That's another perfect example of social conditioning... making an excuse for something that someone can't accept based upon their insecurity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freddy

:crazy :waving

Are you kidding me. Men and Women are to completely different animals.
We might look the same but we are so different. Im not saying one is better then the other just stating a point

---

Entirely different, except for the human genome project's irrefutable proof that we are 99.999...% the same!

Read Mum's initial response again, it doesn't contradict the anecdotal trend that you see in your experiences. If female puberty is triggered by reaching a certain weight, and the food and lifestyle our culture has adopted (different from even 15 years ago) is causing our children to gain more weight at an earlier age (not anecdotal by the way - empirical, verifiable data), then, hormones notwithstanding, our girls are going to hit puberty earlier.

If puberty is not triggered by a certain weight in males, then that change won't influence the age at which puberty will begin for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo

Anyway, when girls or women beat boys or guys at something, why do people have to dig for excuses for why it has happened? That's another perfect example of social conditioning... making an excuse for something that someone can't accept based upon their insecurity.

---

Well, it's not really making a new excuse. If the reason people attribute to the higher level of male baseball is the strength differential, it would be a natural conclusion that if girls excelled at younger ages, it too would have to do with strength. The truth of course is not purely physiological, social, or psychological. It is a combination of all these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macker

Womens baseball, for the reasons you cited, is not on par with mens baseball. It's not even on par with Single A baseball. If any women are talented enough to play pro baseball, I'm behind them all the way. But they are a long ways from having a womens MLB. No high horse about it. Simple facts.

---

While I am inclined to agree with you in regard to the elite female amateur teams being more talented, relative to the overall body of female ball players, than men's amateur teams are to the pool of male players, I don't really know how the above conclusion follows.

Women's professional baseball would be its own discreet entity; the standard for a women's major league would be entirely independent of the standard for the current MLB. Women's major league baseball would simply represent the best that women's baseball has to offer (just like MLB does), what that best is, is irrelevant.

If that league is unable to support itself because of an insufficient fanbase, then so be it. But comparisons to MLB are ill conceived.

Quote:

---

If that league is unable to support itself because of an insufficient fanbase, then so be it. But comparisons to MLB are ill conceived.

---

The WNBA is the highest level of womens basketball. However, I know a lot of people you couldn't pay to go to one of the games. Why? Not specifically because they are women, but because it is not on the level of the mens NBA. They might as well go see a CBA game, just as most fans would be more interesting in going to a A or AA baseball game than a WMLB game. That's why comparison to the level of MLB is relevant.

I'd go to WMLB games. I just don't believe it would have the fan support it would need to survive unless things occur first (as specified in NotAboutEgo's post above.)

Gotcha Macker.

What threw me off was your comment about, "if any woman is talented enough to play pro ball." That implied that the standard determining whether a Womens' Professional Baseball leave CAN EXIST had something to do with a comparison of their skill level to men who play in professional leagues. The standard is of whether that league COULD SUCCEED is whether there would be a fanbase to support it.

It's just like any other business - you don't have to make better widgets than I do, you just gotta get enough people to buy em to keep your factory open. So long as you are being paid to make widgets, you are a professional widget maker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo

I've seen so many female baseball players with tons of talent... from around the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Many of the women's teams I've played against and have seen play could beat many men's amateur teams hands down, because they are better players and have better fundamentals and mechanics.

The comments we hear most from umpires who work both women's and men's games tell us that women focus on fundamentals and mechanics more than men do, and therefore, a lot of times they are better ballplayers.

As I've stated before, talent has nothing to do with gender. There are males with talent and there are females with talent. It's what you do with the talent that matters. Perhaps the girls in your league aren't that good because they have little or no experience and therefore are intimidated. If all the girls in your league played college softball, I'm sure the story would be much different.

---

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charger567

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

---

First of all, it does mean something to me when I say that, because I've seen it with my own eyes and I've experienced it... and I don't need any other sort of proof. I don't care whether you or anyone else believes me or not.

Secondly, have you even been to any games where there were females playing, and if so, how many games and what type of experience do they have?

Remember, your corner of the world is not the only corner that exists. Just because you may not have witnessed it doesn't mean it's not true and hasn't happened in another corner of the world... even if you haven't heard about it.

egocentrism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charger567

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

---

Here's an article about a female player...

"Anna Makes #1 State Team
WBL Sparks player, Anna Kimbrell, just made the #1 12U boys’ baseball team in South Carolina. Anna was invited to try out for this team after being scouted at Cooperstown Dreams Park while playing for the Sparks. Another Anna story…last season she smashed a home run by hitting the flagpole and threw a no-hitter in the same game. Congratulations Anna!"

http://www.saskbaseball.ca/women_baseball_news.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charger567

Well.. I haven't seen them. Any articles on this subject to back that? It really doesn't mean much to say "I saw amateur girls beat amateur boys before."

---

You're right to say that some sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. Assuming what NAE said is true, it still doesn't really mean anything. It's the reflexive and snappy, requisitions for such an onerous burden of proof that really underlines the issue though. The response to somebody claiming to see highly talented female ballplayers is similar to the reactions claims of smart blacks probably elicited centuries ago. Why is it so difficult to imagine very talented female ballplayers, and why must the litmus test of their talent be upper echelon Major Leaguers?

Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent.

The other thing to consider is that females are often discouraged from developing natural athletic talents, or pressured to divert their attempts to hone their skills from baseball to softball. It's not really a level playing field, because female athletes have to overcome more than male athletes. For females to even be competitive with men, it is a great accomplishment because of the obstacles in the face of that accomplishment. But, yet again, direct male-female competition need not be the standard by which we judge female athletes or athletics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digglahhh

You're right to say that some sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. Assuming what NAE said is true, it still doesn't really mean anything. It's the reflexive and snappy, requisitions for such an onerous burden of proof that really underlines the issue though. The response to somebody claiming to see highly talented female ballplayers is similar to the reactions claims of smart blacks probably elicited centuries ago. Why is it so difficult to imagine very talented female ballplayers, and why must the litmus test of their talent be upper echelon Major Leaguers?

Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent.

The other thing to consider is that females are often discouraged from developing natural athletic talents, or pressured to divert their attempts to hone their skills from baseball to softball. It's not really a level playing field, because female athletes have to overcome more than male athletes. For females to even be competitive with men, it is a great accomplishment because of the obstacles in the face of that accomplishment. But, yet again, direct male-female competition need not be the standard by which we judge female athletes or athletics.

---

Thanks for your post, digglahhh. Also, going along with what you said about talent not being gender-biased but strength being so and strength not equating to talent, it doesn't mean women aren't able to compete with men.

Women can learn to hit a 95+ mph fastball, hit curveballs, change-ups, etc. That doesn't require the highest level of strength or even much strength for that matter. It requires seeing the ball, being able to time the ball, and enough skill to be able to hit the ball, and success of hitting depends on how effectively one hits the ball. None of those require strength, and women are not inferior to men at being able to hit such pitches. Most of it takes focus of mind along with the physical skills. Some people are lucky and don't have to focus on focusing their minds and can be successful by just doing. This isn't gender-biased.

Can women ever get to the point of throwing 90+ mph? Who knows, but I never say anything is impossible. Right now, there are several women who are playing hardball who can throw in the 70's and that pool continues to grow, and the elite of women pitchers right now are throwing in the 80's. Can this be improved upon? It's very highly likely.

Can women hit homeruns? Of course they can. I've seen women hit balls 300+ feet, and that's off pitchers throwing in the mid-60's. Just think of how much further the ball would go if a woman was hitting a 90+ mph pitch.

Anyway, like digglahhh said, direct male-female competition shouldn't be the standard for women's athletics and athletes. The mind that focuses on power and on comparing everything one group does to what another group does is focusing on nothing but external power rather than skill, ability, talent, focus, work ethic, mental toughness, believing in one's self, etc.

Would anyone compare men's collegiate baseball to MLB? Of course not. Why? Because it's its own entity, just like high school baseball is and minor league baseball is. So, why would anyone continue to compare women's baseball to MLB, especially when all women have right now are amateur baseball leagues and teams and a U.S. women's national team that has been in existence for just 3 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotAboutEgo

Thanks for your post, digglahhh. Also, going along with what you said about talent not being gender-biased but strength being so and strength not equating to talent, it doesn't mean women aren't able to compete with men.

Women can learn to hit a 95+ mph fastball, hit curveballs, change-ups, etc. That doesn't require the highest level of strength or even much strength for that matter. It requires seeing the ball, being able to time the ball, and enough skill to be able to hit the ball, and success of hitting depends on how effectively one hits the ball. None of those require strength, and women are not inferior to men at being able to hit such pitches. Most of it takes focus of mind along with the physical skills. Some people are lucky and don't have to focus on focusing their minds and can be successful by just doing. This isn't gender-biased.

Can women ever get to the point of throwing 90+ mph? Who knows, but I never say anything is impossible. Right now, there are several women who are playing hardball who can throw in the 70's and that pool continues to grow, and the elite of women pitchers right now are throwing in the 80's. Can this be improved upon? It's very highly likely.

Can women hit homeruns? Of course they can. I've seen women hit balls 300+ feet, and that's off pitchers throwing in the mid-60's. Just think of how much further the ball would go if a woman was hitting a 90+ mph pitch.

Anyway, like digglahhh said, direct male-female competition shouldn't be the standard for women's athletics and athletes. The mind that focuses on power and on comparing everything one group does to what another group does is focusing on nothing but external power rather than skill, ability, talent, focus, work ethic, mental toughness, believing in one's self, etc.

---

There are a number of inaccuracies here. One, is does take strength to hit a 95 MPH fastball. Specifically, batspeed. Without this batspeed, mechanics and timing do not help that much. In order to consistently hit 90+, you must have batspeed in that area...90+. Two, the difference between throwing in the 70s and 90 is gigantic. The average male throws in the 70s. One in ten thousand can throw 90. That is a huge leap. Finally, the story of seeing a female hitting a 300+ homerun off of a 60 mph,and then specualting that the same swing off of a 90 mph pitch would produce a much farther hit is false. The velocity of the pitch is a much smaller factor than people think in determing exit velocity (and potential distance). Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course. Why do you think that MLB home run derby produces farther home runs than any during the season? The pitches are only at 55-60 MPH. I understand that you are passionate about women gaining respect and having a place to play, but please stop stating specualtion as fact...

As far as women being equal to men in sports I'll paraphrase what Mia Hamm said a few years ago after the Women's Soccer tem won the World Cup.

Hamm was asked if she was interested in playing in the MLS. Her response was the reporter didn't understand the difference in men's and women's sports and athletic ability. She said her team that just won the world championship had trouble playing against U19 state championship boys soccer teams in their pre World Cup game schedule.

Now where does a state level U19 team fit in the overall ranking of teams in the world ? It's light years below the MLS. Most of the players will never be good enough to play in the MLS. The MLS is light years below European soccer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TG Coach

As far as women being equal to men in sports I'll paraphrase what Mia Hamm said a few years ago after the Women's Soccer tem won the World Cup.

Hamm was asked if she was interested in playing in the MLS. Her response was the reporter didn't understand the difference in men's and women's sports and athletic ability. She said her team that just won the world championship had trouble playing against U19 state championship boys soccer teams in their pre World Cup game schedule.

Now where does a state level U19 team fit in the overall ranking of teams in the world ? It's light years below the MLS. Most of the players will never be good enough to play in the MLS. The MLS is light years below European soccer.

---

Re-read Digglahhh's last post... "Talent is not gender-biased. Strength is, though. So given, a male and female blessed with equal talent, equally intent and dedicated to harnessing and developing that talent, the male is going to throw the ball harder and hit the ball further - all things being equal. But, again, that is not talent."

In terms of strength, yes, men have the advantage. In terms of talent, skills, and ability, they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FindAGap12

There are a number of inaccuracies here. One, is does take strength to hit a 95 MPH fastball. Specifically, batspeed. Without this batspeed, mechanics and timing do not help that much. In order to consistently hit 90+, you must have batspeed in that area...90+. Two, the difference between throwing in the 70s and 90 is gigantic. The average male throws in the 70s. One in ten thousand can throw 90. That is a huge leap. Finally, the story of seeing a female hitting a 300+ homerun off of a 60 mph,and then specualting that the same swing off of a 90 mph pitch would produce a much farther hit is false. The velocity of the pitch is a much smaller factor than people think in determing exit velocity (and potential distance). Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course. Why do you think that MLB home run derby produces farther home runs than any during the season? The pitches are only at 55-60 MPH. I understand that you are passionate about women gaining respect and having a place to play, but please stop stating specualtion as fact...

---

It doesn't take a lot of strength to have a lot of bat speed. What it takes is adjusting to speeds to be able to hit the ball, regardless of what it's velocity is, and having quickness (reaction time) when swinging. That adjusting first comes from seeing the ball, then one has to be able to react physically to swing at the right time (timing... training the brain to tell the body to trigger the swing at the right moment and training the muscles to react), and then one has to connect with the ball. That doesn't require a high amount of strength. Quickness doesn't come from strength.

You are saying that timing doesn't mean much. WHAT? Timing is everything when it comes to hitting a baseball. If you can't adjust to varying speeds very well, you probably won't connect with the ball much. After seeing the ball, connecting with it is the next step. Bat speed determines how much power/energy from the snap of the wrists is added to the swing. One can still connect with the ball even if they don't have a lot of bat speed but have good timing. The ball may not go as far as someone who has more bat speed, but they still can connect with the ball if their timing is on.

Mechanics will affect timing, batspeed, the quality of a hit, power, etc.

"Batspeed is the number one factor, after squaring the ball up of course." Interesting that you say that after saying timing doesn't help much. What do you think "squaring the ball up" is?

There are many factors that influence the power/velocity of a hit and connecting with the ball... not just one or two. First, as I already mentioned, you have to see the ball. Then, you have to be able to react to its velocity at the right moment (timing), then you have to be able to connect with it (timing and mechanics). You may have really good timing and really good bat speed, but if your mechanics are really bad, you probably won't do well. You can have really good mechanics and really good bat speed, but if your timing is way off, you probably won't connect with the ball. You can have really good timing and mechanics and slower bat speed, but you can still connect with the ball and have a good swing, but the ball may not go as far with less bat speed. So, in essence, bat speed is not what determines whether one is able to hit a 90+ mph pitch. It certanily influences it, but it doesn't determine it all by itself, and bat speed isn't determined from strength.

Other factors are just as important. For example, if one holds the bat tightly rather than loosely, it will affect not only the mechanics of one's swing but will also affect one's bat speed. This has nothing to do with strength.

Having quick wrists, however, doesn't equate to being really strong. Learning to use the proper mechanics... having loose, quick wrists and letting your them fly and "throwing" your hands at the ball properly when swinging rather than having tight, inhibiting wrists that don't snap... has way more to do with bat speed than anything does.

As far as velocity of a pitch is concerned, it does influence how far a ball will go... more than you think. Of course, it's not the only determining factor. All the other things I mentioned above also influence that. It's a case of pure physics. If more energy is coming at you when you hit the ball, the ball will jump off the bat with more energy. It's not too hard to figure out.

As far as the MLB home run derby goes, the balls are obviously juiced. If you can't see that, then you are blind. If a guy can hit a home run much farther during the home run derby when the velocity of the pitches is 55-60, why can't he do the same during games? That actually goes against your argument rather than being in favor of it. If bat speed is the number one factor and none of the rest matters that much, then MLB players should be able to hit regular-game home runs the same distance that they hit home-run-derby home runs.