Skyballer

So I wasn't just imagining things. Like I said, I haven't even thought about baseball in months but I still thought it was fairly obvious that it's an easier throw for a lefty

That further invalidates my dads theory I guess. I haven't paid attention to anything baseball related in months.

My dad and I got in the argument while he was loathing over Teixeira. He was talking about how amazing Teixera's arm is and I tried to argue that a first basemen's arm is very unimportant. He used the example of a 1B moving to second to start a double play. He then proceeded to brag about how hard it is for Teixeira being left handed when I realized that, at least when I tried it, its an easier throw for a left since your throwing arm is already back in a throwing position and you're hips are facing the direction of your throw. He yelled and argued but the more I tried both scenarios it was easier as a lefty. Still I can't say for sure since I am not ambidextrous and in fact throw right handed and do not play first. I was curious what the NSBB community thought about the scenario. Not that it makes much of a difference over a season.

His 90mph change up is unreal. I liked that a guy with 100 mph fastball only got 1/10 k's via the heat

Except its not an alliance

I would love to see you expound on this. It seems pretty simple, it's an extremely rare feat for someone to strike out 20 batters through 9 innings. For someone to strike out 21 would be even more amazing. Regardless of a particular pitches skill set, the chances between two elite pitchers are pretty much a tie as it is. You can give the slight edge to Strasburg because he is young and throws 100 mph, but I think that edge is also negated by the fact that we really can't be sure what his future will look like, where as we can for Lincecum. so basically, a dumbed down version of what the guy above you said Just for you imb

I would love to see you expound on this. It seems pretty simple, it's an extremely rare feat for someone to strike out 20 batters through 9 innings. For someone to strike out 21 would be even more amazing. Regardless of a particular pitches skill set, the chances between two elite pitchers are pretty much a tie as it is. You can give the slight edge to Strasburg because he is young and throws 100 mph, but I think that edge is also negated by the fact that we really can't be sure what his future will look like, where as we can for Lincecum.

I would argue that between him and Lincecum its almost a tie.

His numbers this year in the pen are pretty amazing, especially when you put them up against his career numbers. His ERA is sitting at 1.93, good for an ERA+ of 237 :shock: . Through his 5 year career and just north of 400 innings his ERA+ averages out to 105. So over the course of 23.1 innings his ERA+ is 132 points better than his career average. He's averaging 11.6 K/9 this year compared to a career average of 6.7 K/9. His K/BB ratio is just over four this year compared to a career average of just under 2. His walks are down and his strikeouts are way up compared to what hes done the last four years. While I don't have the Bapib against on hand right now it seems unlikely that hes getting too lucky seeing as K/BB has increased so dramatically. So what gives? Are his pitches just awkwardly good in small sample size, is he relying other pitches more, or have his pitches just gotten better when only working for an inning or two? For starters his straight fastball has gotten a little hotter. Going from about 87 to 90 MPH can certainly make a difference. He's also throwing his fastball more as well as his cut significantly less. He's completely eliminated the change from his repertoire this year. Hes really relied pretty heavily on his curve this year though, throwing it 44% of the time compared to a career average of about 23%. I think its also worth noting that the velocity on the curve has jumped about 4 mph, seems odd to increase the velocity of a curve ball. His fastball has improved and hes relied on it a little more this year. He's gone away from the cutter quite a bit and really relied heavily on his curve ball. The results speak for themselves and it doesn't appear as though he getting lucky. Personally I'd like to see him kept in the bullpen because I think his pitches are considerably sharper there and hes quite valuable in high leverage 7th and 8th inning situations. I'm asking 2 questions though, A) how long can he keep pitching like this, and how much of this do you think is a direct result of being a full time reliever? I'm curious to hear some input.

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs590.snc3/31104_392899611917_511551917_4199227_2273957_n.jpg Vlade races around to score. Did he dip his right arm in bleach?

Was Marshall as filth as game day indicated?

Way late to this party but throw my name in the list please

I think Marshall is one of those guys who's valuable in both spots. As a starter you know he can come in and give you 6+ solid innings, he has the arm strength and the secondary pitches to do it. On the flip side though he makes a great reliever/spot starter. He can come in in relief and get both the righties and lefties out, he can come in for multiple innings and guys just aren't ready for the big loopy curve in the seventh and eight after seeing someone else the rest of the game. I would rather seem him take Silva's spot, but he's a fine reliever as well, so long as he is not a LOOGY

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though. The majority includes all the uneducated people who are dumb enough to elect W. Bush to a second term. They aren't always right. Way to make a point that no one is debating

Not if we are to have a government of the people. Ever heard of serve the majority and protect the minority? The current health care system before this law obviously did not do that. Neither does this law though.

I am by no way advocating the idea that public opinion reflects the truth. I'm advocating the idea that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. That is a key idea this country is built on. Congress did not represent the people with the passing of the Health Care Reform Act.

Only 30% polled feel the health care bill would help their families. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159966.php 69% feel the quality of their health care will go down with the passing of the Health Care Act. Only 49% were in support of fundamental change. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159966.php 54% of voters oppose the health care act. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159966.php Only 25% feel the current bill should have been passed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159966.php Im sorry I thought you were informed that the majority of Americans opposed this law. Now you are.

Attorney General John Suthers of Colorado has confirmed he will join several states, at least 9 confirmed, I believe 20 or more pending, to sue the federal government over this bill. If half or more of the states feel their tenth amendment right as well as the people's right to commerce is being violated I think thats a pretty telling number that this bill was not reflecting the people, instead it is the reflection of democrat law makers. This country was built by the people and for the people. This law however is not a reflection of what the people want. Even the preamble of the constitution is being violated here.

Or an over crowded system like Canada. "You need and MRI, we'll book you for one in three months." The law will be a disaster. There's a reason every republican and even 34 democrats voted against it. Most polls show the majority of the people are against it. It is also a direct violation of capitalism, free choice, and state's rights. People shouldn't die or go without adequate treatment because they don't have thousands of dollars. Oh and I don't get caught up much in the free choice crap when it comes to this. Most people don't have a choice. They either have lots of money, can get huge loans or can't and much go without. People should have to be faced with that choice. A hospital can't refuse treatment. I'm not saying thats a fix all to the flawed system, but this is a disastrous, and violates several core principles our country was based upon.

Or an over crowded system like Canada. "You need and MRI, we'll book you for one in three months." The law will be a disaster. There's a reason every republican and even 34 democrats voted against it. Most polls show the majority of the people are against it. It is also a direct violation of capitalism, free choice, and state's rights.

Yea damn then and their constitutional rights. How dare we be upset that the federal govt is now forcing every american by 2014 to have health insurance or pay a fine. This violates the commerce clause, the tenth amendment and probably even the first. Those damned state and their rights. Just as bad as those damned people who are against socialism, morons.

Last I read it was something like 37.

Its certainly been a controversial bill, even after being passed the overwhelming majority of AG's have got their legal pens out ready to sign to sue the federal government over it. Between its length(I'll be surprised if most congressmen have read it through), its constitutionality, its cost, and the issue of government funded abortion it has quickly become seemingly one of the least approved bills to make it through Congress. Where does NSBB stand?

I was beginning to wonder why Theriot was suddenly being referred on the informal basis of just Ryan. This is quite hysterical. I like Theriot, I think he is underrated by this board. I do not consider him to be much more that just average though however.

He'll owe the Cubs money if they listen to NSBB