A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Sounds like Papi had a good rehab game today.  Maybe we need that Bad Boy in the middle of our line-up.  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jcri's comment:

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

     

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.



    Great discussion here.

    Hitting bombs is not always about brute strength. It's a lot about fluidity, form, and hand-eye coordination. Also, the ball has changed, pitchers have changed, and park sizes as well. 

    I think the pitchers of that day were sometimes focusing on longevity, and maybe "saved themselves" a bit, in order to go 8-9 innings 40 times a year. Now, with all the bull pen specialty roles, every one is asked to go all out every inning, and they know someone's has their back after 5-6 IP. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

     

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.

     



    Great discussion here.

     

    Hitting bombs is not always about brute strength. It's a lot about fluidity, form, and hand-eye coordination. Also, the ball has changed, pitchers have changed, and park sizes as well. 

    I think the pitchers of that day were sometimes focusing on longevity, and maybe "saved themselves" a bit, in order to go 8-9 innings 40 times a year. Now, with all the bull pen specialty roles, every one is asked to go all out every inning, and they know someone's has their back after 5-6 IP. 




    I agree. The game today is much different and thus the athletes are conditioned to it. Pitchers are more conditioned to get the "quality start" than they are to complete over 10 games a year. They are paid a ton more as well and owners want to preserve their investment.

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBruinss. Show BostonBruinss's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to BostonBruinss' comment:

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew



    Didnt realize Hanny pitched last night. Drew was on base 3 times last night.
    thats 2 dumb comments Ive seen from you today...keep up the good work!

    sorry guys...back to business....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to BostonBruinss' comment:

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew



    Actually, it's all Beckett's fault. The residuals may take years to get over.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    I posted this on the game thread...I

    Just saw a picture of old Dodger pitcher Don Newcombe.

    Did you guys know that in 1950 he pitched both ends of a double header?  He pitched a shutout complete game in the 1st game, and gave up only two runs in the second game after seven innings.

    Why in hell do pitchers today tire out after 5 innings or so?  Yes, a few exceptions..Verlander, for one.. Nolan Ryan was another.

    Really! what in the world?

     

     

     



    I think the longest mlb game ever played was 26 innings if I remember correctly and I believe both pitchers threw the entire game. Something like that. The old timers threw forever.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    The Orioles might well have been inordinately lucky last year but they obviously have a lot of emerging young talent. Machado, Adams, Wieters...etc. And they have 2 young starters coming up soon. They are a problem. No question about it. Their pitching should improve over time.

    But we are a competitive team also. We are in for a classic pennant race.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    The Orioles might well have been inordinately lucky last year but they obviously have a lot of emerging young talent. Machado, Adams, Wieters...etc. And they have 2 young starters coming up soon. They are a problem. No question about it. Their pitching should improve over time.

    But we are a competitive team also. We are in for a classic pennant race.



    The O's are good enough to give us pretty significant odds of finishing in last place.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    And I would not rule out the possibility that some umps are on the take. It was proven last year in FIFA soccer matches worldwide. I've seen obvious examples of it in Soccer, including in the recent USA vs Mexico game. The main ref's brother was the linesman. And some horrible calls were made to keep Mexico from winning that game where the USA were huge  underdogs. 

    We have seen some games recently where the umps were just terrible. Squeezing a pitcher's strike zone can absolutely change the outcome of a game.

    Organized crime can threaten kidnappings in an umps family or black mail them or just bribe them with incredible amounts of money.

    Sometimes it's good to be the underdog. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     




    OK. Got it. This was your opinion, not fact. I am not sure why you think you know whats on Barry Zito's mind any more than I do. None of us know if he would have accepted a trade to Boston, so Moon's hypothetical proposal is not that far fetched. Thats one of the things we do here: propose hypothetical moves that could help the club. Your claim that it could never happen because Zito would never accept a trade to Boston is absurd as you have no clue what Zito would or would not accept.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    As far as pitchers 'going all out' for 5 innings or whatever because bullpens now are intended to be utilized more is not true.  Actually, it's the other way around.  Pitchers are asked to 'pace' themselves more.

    Non of this answers how a Verlander or Ryan slipped through.  Actually, Verlander's velocity increases as the game progresses.  And, these two guys I consider to be power pitchers from the 'modern' era.

    When did the ball change?  The height of the mound changed too, but I think that it was lowered to give a little more advantage to the hitter because, at that time, baseball was perceived to be a little boring and more home runs were needed to spice the game up.

    With the lower mound, I would think there would be longer home runs today.

    Incidentally, this is all off the top of my head.  So, I may be completely wrong on the mound issue.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     

     




    OK. Got it. This was your opinion, not fact. I am not sure why you think you know whats on Barry Zito's mind any more than I do. None of us know if he would have accepted a trade to Boston, so Moon's hypothetical proposal is not that far fetched. Thats one of the things we do here: propose hypothetical moves that could help the club. Your claim that it could never happen because Zito would never accept a trade to Boston is absurd as you have no clue what Zito would or would not accept.

     



    Whatever Pumpsie...go back to whining, it's what you do best.  When I visit the Giants at the end of August, I'll ask some people their thoughts on the subject, just to get a few laughs.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     

     




    OK. Got it. This was your opinion, not fact. I am not sure why you think you know whats on Barry Zito's mind any more than I do. None of us know if he would have accepted a trade to Boston, so Moon's hypothetical proposal is not that far fetched. Thats one of the things we do here: propose hypothetical moves that could help the club. Your claim that it could never happen because Zito would never accept a trade to Boston is absurd as you have no clue what Zito would or would not accept.

     

     



    Whatever Pumpsie...go back to whining, it's what you do best.  When I visit the Giants at the end of August, I'll ask some people their thoughts on the subject, just to get a few laughs.  

     



    Personal insults: the last bastion for someone who is losing a debate. Let me know next time you sit down for a cup of coffee with Zito to pick his brain.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     

     




    OK. Got it. This was your opinion, not fact. I am not sure why you think you know whats on Barry Zito's mind any more than I do. None of us know if he would have accepted a trade to Boston, so Moon's hypothetical proposal is not that far fetched. Thats one of the things we do here: propose hypothetical moves that could help the club. Your claim that it could never happen because Zito would never accept a trade to Boston is absurd as you have no clue what Zito would or would not accept.

     

     



    Whatever Pumpsie...go back to whining, it's what you do best.  When I visit the Giants at the end of August, I'll ask some people their thoughts on the subject, just to get a few laughs.  

     

     



    Personal insults: the last bastion for someone who is losing a debate. Let me know next time you sit down for a cup of coffee with Zito to pick his brain.

     



    Will do, Pumpsie, and if it's in SF, I'll invite you along and introduce you to Zito.  By the way, you know a heck of a lot less about me than I do about Zito, so please don't ever tell me that "I have no clue," and I won't call you an avid "whiner."  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    My suggested trade was really just an example put forth to find a way to get rid of CC's salary, but instead of just paying cash like we are doing to a small extent now with the Dodgers, but to get back someone else's salary dump in return who is owed less. The lessening of the financial hit was the "carrot" to the other team. I think my actualy suggested offer included other players and maybe even taking on Huff's contract as well.

    The idea was that SF "needed" offense at that time, and would have loved to have dumped Zito & his deal.

    The salaries owed at last year's deadline were about:

    Zito: $33.5M for 1.3 seasosn (assuming a no on the $11M differential on 2014 vs the buyout) of $44.5M for 2.3 seasons with the 2014 option.  

    CC: $108M for 5.3 years.

    Zito: 12:$19M,13:$20M, 14:$18M club option ($7M buyout)

    CC: 12:$19.5M, 13:$20M, 14:$20.25M, 15:$20.5M, 16:$20.75M,17:$21M

     

    I get the Barry might have not wanted to come to Boston. I respect that opinion, but one never knows. I do not think he was happy in SF. The media and fans must have been hard on him after several poor seasons at that cost. Although I did not mention it at the time, one could imagine us sweetening his salary to agree to the trade, if he was reluctant.

    The same with A Sanchez and B McCarthy. I think they might have come here if we offered significantly more money. Maybe not. My point is that there are many examples where a player was quoted as saying I want to play here or not play there, and they do the opposite for just pennies more. The Sox could offer more than pennies, so, yes, I do sort of have an attitude that nearly anything is possible.

    Unlike most trade suggestions made on this site, I will say with complete confidence that my trade suggestions are usually criticized for giving up too much rather than the other way around. I try to be realistic, but realize some of my offers may not have had much of a chance, even if Ben agreed with them.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     


    I never said in any way shape or form that Zito "said" anything.  The "100%" was clearly stated as  an opinion from what I know about Barry Zito, which is obviously more than you and I don't "live" in San Francisco, but the Giants are one of my customers that I visit at least once a year.  Moon said the "100% was a joke," yet at the same time posted that Iglesias was "10 times better defensively than Drew." We all slighly exaggerate to make a point, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that Zito wasn't waiving his no trade to come to Boston last summer.  

     

     




    OK. Got it. This was your opinion, not fact. I am not sure why you think you know whats on Barry Zito's mind any more than I do. None of us know if he would have accepted a trade to Boston, so Moon's hypothetical proposal is not that far fetched. Thats one of the things we do here: propose hypothetical moves that could help the club. Your claim that it could never happen because Zito would never accept a trade to Boston is absurd as you have no clue what Zito would or would not accept.

     

     



    Whatever Pumpsie...go back to whining, it's what you do best.  When I visit the Giants at the end of August, I'll ask some people their thoughts on the subject, just to get a few laughs.  

     

     



    Personal insults: the last bastion for someone who is losing a debate. Let me know next time you sit down for a cup of coffee with Zito to pick his brain.

     

     



    Will do, Pumpsie, and if it's in SF, I'll invite you along and introduce you to Zito.  By the way, you know a heck of a lot less about me than I do about Zito, so please don't ever tell me that "I have no clue," and I won't call you an avid "whiner."  

     



    Its a deal. I should probably have asked you this before: do you have first hand knowledge (ie from Zito) that there is no way in hell he would ever pitch for the Red Sox. I assumed, perhaps mistakingly, that you do not personally know Zito well enough to have posed that hypothetical question to him.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Its a deal. I should probably have asked you this before: do you have first hand knowledge (ie from Zito) that there is no way in hell he would ever pitch for the Red Sox. I assumed, perhaps mistakingly, that you do not personally know Zito well enough to have posed that hypothetical question to him. 

    My point is that even if Zito said he'd never want to play in Boston, it doesn't mean he never would agree to a trade. People change their minds, money talks, and sometimes the situation may change from one day to the next.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Its a deal. I should probably have asked you this before: do you have first hand knowledge (ie from Zito) that there is no way in hell he would ever pitch for the Red Sox. I assumed, perhaps mistakingly, that you do not personally know Zito well enough to have posed that hypothetical question to him. 

    My point is that even if Zito said he'd never want to play in Boston, it doesn't mean he never would agree to a trade. People change their minds, money talks, and sometimes the situation may change from one day to the next.




    I understand what you were saying Moon. I am just challenging Jasko's statement. He was implying that he had some sort of inside information about Zito's desires that the rest of us are not privvy to. I asked him directly if he has that kind of information. Without it, his opinion is no better than mine or yours about what Zito would or would not do.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Its a deal. I should probably have asked you this before: do you have first hand knowledge (ie from Zito) that there is no way in hell he would ever pitch for the Red Sox. I assumed, perhaps mistakingly, that you do not personally know Zito well enough to have posed that hypothetical question to him. 

    My point is that even if Zito said he'd never want to play in Boston, it doesn't mean he never would agree to a trade. People change their minds, money talks, and sometimes the situation may change from one day to the next.

     




    I understand what you were saying Moon. I am just challenging Jasko's statement. He was implying that he had some sort of inside information about Zito's desires that the rest of us are not privvy to. I asked him directly if he has that kind of information. Without it, his opinion is no better than mine or yours about what Zito would or would not do.

     

     



    I understand your inquiry.

    I'm not really hung up on the "what ifs" as some here think I am. I brought up the Zito suggestion I had made months ago more to stick it to softy than to cry about what ifs. 

    I'm still very happy with the Dodger trade. I'd rather have Webster and DLR than Zito and his contract anyways, but we still are paying part of CC's deal and we lost AGon and Beckett in the deal. (I know I'm in a tiny minority, but I'd still rather have Josh than Dempster, but I'm not sad to see him go.)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    As far as pitchers 'going all out' for 5 innings or whatever because bullpens now are intended to be utilized more is not true.  Actually, it's the other way around.  Pitchers are asked to 'pace' themselves more.

    Non of this answers how a Verlander or Ryan slipped through.  Actually, Verlander's velocity increases as the game progresses.  And, these two guys I consider to be power pitchers from the 'modern' era.

    When did the ball change?  The height of the mound changed too, but I think that it was lowered to give a little more advantage to the hitter because, at that time, baseball was perceived to be a little boring and more home runs were needed to spice the game up.

    With the lower mound, I would think there would be longer home runs today.

    Incidentally, this is all off the top of my head.  So, I may be completely wrong on the mound issue.



    Amp, you are correct about the mound; it was lowered, I believe, between the 1968-1969 seasons. Yaz won the '68 batting title with a .301 average and was the only 300 hitter. Gibson had an insane season for St. Louis; I think he threw 13 shutouts. I think there have been a few ball changes, different manufacturers who wind the ball tighter.

    Last summer my son was the winning pitcher in the State American Legion semi-final game and he threw 149 pitches. We lost the finals the next day and he wouldn't have pitched then anyway, obviously. But had we won the finals, we would not have played for eight days, so there was no reason to not stretch him out. He's 6'3" and at the time weighed 175 lbs., long and lean. He throws year-round, one hour once a week in the off season, and has never had a sore arm. He also does an exercise where he makes and releases a fist inside a bucket of rice for about 15 minutes every day. He throws as many breaking balls as fastballs. It's all about conditioning. I understand the owners' feeling today about protecting their investments, but the best protection in my opinion is better conditioning and more work. There is certainly some credence to Crit's comments about the workout habits and just general strength of today's teens. They spend more time in the gym than they do actually playing their sport. And they certainly don't do the chores that we or our dads did!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jidgef's comment:

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    As far as pitchers 'going all out' for 5 innings or whatever because bullpens now are intended to be utilized more is not true.  Actually, it's the other way around.  Pitchers are asked to 'pace' themselves more.

    Non of this answers how a Verlander or Ryan slipped through.  Actually, Verlander's velocity increases as the game progresses.  And, these two guys I consider to be power pitchers from the 'modern' era.

    When did the ball change?  The height of the mound changed too, but I think that it was lowered to give a little more advantage to the hitter because, at that time, baseball was perceived to be a little boring and more home runs were needed to spice the game up.

    With the lower mound, I would think there would be longer home runs today.

    Incidentally, this is all off the top of my head.  So, I may be completely wrong on the mound issue.

     



    Amp, you are correct about the mound; it was lowered, I believe, between the 1968-1969 seasons. Yaz won the '68 batting title with a .301 average and was the only 300 hitter. Gibson had an insane season for St. Louis; I think he threw 13 shutouts. I think there have been a few ball changes, different manufacturers who wind the ball tighter.

     

    Last summer my son was the winning pitcher in the State American Legion semi-final game and he threw 149 pitches. We lost the finals the next day and he wouldn't have pitched then anyway, obviously. But had we won the finals, we would not have played for eight days, so there was no reason to not stretch him out. He's 6'3" and at the time weighed 175 lbs., long and lean. He throws year-round, one hour once a week in the off season, and has never had a sore arm. He also does an exercise where he makes and releases a fist inside a bucket of rice for about 15 minutes every day. He throws as many breaking balls as fastballs. It's all about conditioning. I understand the owners' feeling today about protecting their investments, but the best protection in my opinion is better conditioning and more work. There is certainly some credence to Crit's comments about the workout habits and just general strength of today's teens. They spend more time in the gym than they do actually playing their sport. And they certainly don't do the chores that we or our dads did!



    Great post.

    I remember playing sports from sun up to sun down every chance I got. I never lifted a weight in a gym until my 30's.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share