Jump to content
Matthew Boyd is back on the bump for the Cubs, join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

CoolHandLuke

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,989

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by CoolHandLuke

  1. CoolHandLuke
    Its 440-450 at the centerfield corners, so its definitely shorter than that straightaway. From the youtube clip I saw, the catch looked to be made on the warning track just a bit to the right of the nook. And regardless of the distance, it was a great catch, no doubt.
  2. CoolHandLuke
    http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/PoloGrounds.gif I'm not commenting on the difficulty of the play, just the dimensions of the polo grounds. It seems as though the really long center field measurement is a bit misleading, as it likely refers only to the "nook". The real center field distance looks to be only in the 415-425 range.
  3. CoolHandLuke
    Yes this. Similarly to the last time we had this argument, XZero, sums up my exact feelings.
  4. CoolHandLuke
    I don't know why, and it makes me feel dirty saying so, but this is one of my favorite internet words.
  5. CoolHandLuke
    They probably didn't ask him what his favorite homophobic insult was.
  6. CoolHandLuke
    wow buddy, wow. :banned:
  7. CoolHandLuke
    delusions of grandeur??? If you want to really test this, I suggest you get together with the physics teacher and try to conduct this experiment more scientifically (like using motion sensors to detect the runners position, velocity, time, etc instead of eyeballing it). Also be very careful, because if one of these kids gets hurt because of this, you could have to face the wrath of some very angry parents.
  8. CoolHandLuke
    Get well soon!
  9. CoolHandLuke
    Vazquez > Lilly As bad as our #5 candidates are, I am pretty sure Floyd is much much worse. Also I feel as though our bullpen is pretty solid (haven't looked at the bullpens too closely, but it's definitely not a landslide)
  10. CoolHandLuke
    I am not saying you're wrong, but to my mind, the process of changing your body position in order to touch the base with your hand would not increase the the amount of time it takes to touch the base enough to counteract the loss of forward propulsion due to losing the ability to drive with your legs. You could be right, but I am not willing to go against my gut feeling (I know, very scientific, eh?) without either controlled experimentation or at least the physics of the situation broken down piece by piece (with diagrams!). You can say that reaching out will obviously touch the bag quicker, but I am not going to believe that unless I have better reasoning that because you tell me so. (also, what is the validity of the link you give? It doesn't strike me that it comes from someone who knows what they are talking about all that much)
  11. CoolHandLuke
    Woohoo so, BRob is on a plane to Chicago for a physical, right?
  12. CoolHandLuke
    I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't that the same concept as trying to get your hand/body in the vicinity of the base faster? Not really. While you can touch first with your foot, you cannot catch a ball with your foot. But by your reasoning diving for the ball at the end could not be faster than just running to it on a full sprint at all times. Running to the ball full speed will get you to the point where the ball will be faster, you just wont be in a position to catch it.
  13. CoolHandLuke
    I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but isn't that the same concept as trying to get your hand/body in the vicinity of the base faster? Not really. While you can touch first with your foot, you cannot catch a ball with your foot.
  14. CoolHandLuke
    No. Since you are ignoring my earlier explanation entirely, and the link that followed it up, I'll post it again. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_sliding_into_a_base_make_you_reach_base_faster Read it this time. And yes, the Mythbusters episode "busted" a "myth" that didn't actually exist in the first place. Total waste of time. Sorry for continuing the baserunning discussion, but I don't buy what that website is selling. They don't seem to take into account that once you start to rotate into the dive/slide position you lose the ability to continue using your legs to propel yourself forward at the same rate. Also the part about fielders diving for balls doesn't make any sense. They don't dive to get to the ball faster, they dive to get their glove into the vicinity of the ball faster.
  15. CoolHandLuke
    In an old thread on this subject I dug up numerous links that support the idea that sliding into first slows you down, but I am not going to dig them up again. To me, it's common sense. Running through the first base bag will be faster than sliding, every time. The only time one should slide into first is if the first baseman has come off the bag, and is trying to apply a tag. A person may feel sliding is faster, but it simply isn't. And yeah, it's more dangerous as well. Didn't Mythbusters cover this as well? I'm pretty sure they did, and running through the base was much faster. They aren't athletes, but the evidence was still there. The Mythbusters tested sliding into a base versus stopping directly at the base (not running through it), which seems like a huge waste of time to me.
  16. CoolHandLuke
    Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have. It's good for looking at what a player did, but it's not so good when trying to predict what a player will do.
  17. CoolHandLuke
    big sig! :shock:
  18. CoolHandLuke
    I would gladly eat half eaten sandwiches and keep every single one of my personal belongings in garbage-y shoe boxes for a 10 million a year contract.
  19. CoolHandLuke
    How do you know? I wouldn't doubt it, Peter is at Cubs Spring Training camp down in Mesa so he probably has some good inside info. I was referring to the date (how does he know what Gammons will say tomorrow?)
  20. CoolHandLuke
    How do you know?
  21. CoolHandLuke
    As opposed to?
  22. CoolHandLuke
    I agree that Roberts and Soriano can both score runs, which is what you want your top of the order guys to do. BUT, Soriano isn't a type of player that you use to score runs. He is the type of player that drives in runs. So he would be much more valuable lower in the lineup. If Roberts and Soriano are equal in run scoring, then DeRosa and Soriano are not equal in run producing. So it comes down to who would you rather have driving in runs in the 5 hole, Soriano or DeRosa? Plus, a lot of Soriano's runs last year came from HRs, like a third of them. Those could still be runs, but also more RBI for him. While Roberts, without the HRs, can still get more runs than Soriano just by getting on base more. It's not a black or white situation.
  23. CoolHandLuke
    I grew up as a "sort of" Brewer fan (dad's influence), so I would love to be able to root for them again.
  24. CoolHandLuke
    You're forgetting one little thing. The Cubs can't beat the Marlins to save their lives. The other thing he is forgetting is that the d-rays will be better than the cubs in a couple years.
  25. CoolHandLuke
    completely agree.
×
×
  • Create New...