SaorsaDaonnan

agree 100%. we know Maddux and Hill's velocity and the gun on the broadcast was accurate for them. if what they are saying about the gun is true, than Maddux' fastball is about 82-83. Maybe, maybe not...depends on the physics. Maybe a radar gun is always off by a fixed number---3 MPH too fast, 1 MPH too slow, ect. Remember your old y = mx + b stuff from high school? Well, you're assuming that when a radar gun is badly calibrated, m still equals one. Is that a good assumption? I have no clue. [/i]

You realize, of course, that he said that referring to the Battle of the Bulge. :shock:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070306&content_id=1830347&vkey=spt2007news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Didn't see this on here yet... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CprMY7np0EI WARNING: This clip known to induce strong and often violent reactions.

Premise: Ferguson Jenkins was a good baseball player Premise: All good baseball players know heaps more about baseball than fans do Conclusion: Ferguson Jenkins' statements cannot be falsified by facts. :roll:

"Hey boys, can anybody spare a razor?" :shock: (anybody else remember hearing about that?) Good luck, Matt.

Which of them has a larger baseball card collection?

May I ask why we are still referring to ERA? :roll:

You mean to tell me that I'm not the only one studying the Model Penal Code tonight? (Note: this is definately not a double entendre.)

Right on, man! All this twaddle about "stats" is just one more attempt by our oppressively monolithic Western culture to subvert your deep-seated natural instincts and to denigrate the rightful primacy of your sociocultural background and condition by subjugating you with it's fascistic "ideas" and "facts." This cult of heartless, dreamkilling fascists plots to rip us out of the rich cultural tapestry into which we were born, and to rend us from the abiding connection to our cultural roots which is the source of all truly abiding nourishment and sustenance. Thousands of endangered sac bunts die every day, and what do we do? But you can see through this--you and perhaps you alone can see through their imperalistic claims of "objective truth" and obsession with illusory "facts." You and perhaps you alone can see that they wish to tear you from your natural impulses-- the exhilaration of exciting plays unmediated by reflection. You and St. Morgan may be our last hope-- to protect the sanctity of pristine baseball-in-the-moment experience and anecdotes-around-the-fire from the fetid conspiracy of these boot-licking statistics lovers! Down with the fascism of facts! Or not.

Psst! Japan[/i]

In the transactions forum, somebody compared a young pitcher's mechanics to Wood's. Then, he expressed his reservations about acquiring this player. The upshot was that Wood's mechanics led to his injuries. Now, a couple of months ago, I wouldn't have blinked at this. But now, after reading a little on pitching and reminding myself about the trajectory of Wood's career, I'm not so sure. Why not? Well, to put it simply, Wood's career featured almost every kind of negative indicator you could imagine (as far as on-the-field stuff goes, that is). Let's review some of the factors: Inconcievable abuse as a very, very young pitcher Years and years of throwing the slider in a horribly incorrect manner large workloads as a professional at a young age repeated usage well after obvious mechanical breakdown (much more than the average pitcher, imo, because sometimes he was still getting results) consistantly high pitch counts, even in seasons immediately following significant injury consistant back-to-back and back-to-back-to-back outings w/ huge pcs periodic back troubles from high school onward repeatedly rushed returns from injury obvious, extended outings where he was pitching through a lot of pain clearly incomptent medical staff led the league in PAP in 2003 lots of overthrowing that beautiful, beautiful curve ect Lots and lots of things to worry about. So many, in fact, that it's damned hard to say which one caused which problems. Although it's obvious that a pitcher with a "perfect motion" and with perfect timing is much more likely to stay healthy, we typically express concern about any young pitcher with his kind of workload, no matter his attributes or background. So when you throw in a guy who was abused as much as he was before becoming a professional, it becomes really difficult to diagnose the specific cause of an injury. Was it accumulation of the kind of deeper wear and tear that overuse causes? Was it a specific, smaller tear from years ago on pitch #143 on a hot summer day in Texas that just kept growing and growing? Or was it something that would have happened to damn near anybody throwing that much as a very young rookie? A guy with a big fastball and anything near that beautiful curve is always an injury risk, almost on that basis alone. And then there's the slider...and the medical incompetency. And what about scar tissue? It could have been cascade effects; it could have been so many things. No need for me to list them again. Maybe he just had a brittle body. Maybe it was just the wild delivery each time. I doubt it. To read the papers, it was all very simple. Wild mechanics- arm slot, falling off the mound. Simple, cookie cutter stuff that any idiot who spent a couple hours around a high school coach could understand and repeat. There's no doubt that much of it was true- his mechanics were very explosive, dangerously out of control. And there's no denying that this put him a poor position- it was, at its absolute and improbable best, a huge additional obstacle for him to try to overcome. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that all those other factors mean that we have to be more careful in our analysis. In all honesty, I don't think that we can say what did it- not for any of the injuries, let alone all of them. Is there really anybody who thinks that they're in a position to tell me how much of, say, his tendonitis in August of '01 had anything to do with anything that happened beforehand? Was he going too hard in the aftermath of injury, or would lots of otherwise-healthy pitchers have come to the same fate? One thing I'm thinking here relates to an article I just read on BP. An interview with Tom House, the piece explains his views on not changing mechanics. It's definately something to think about. Now, in the interview, House is stating a general philosophy. It's simply that- a broad approach to the subject. It does not[/] mean that he thinks that there is nothing which should ever be corrected. It does not mean that there aren't some things which are so bad that they "must" be stopped. And -let me be very clear about this- I am not arguing that Wood's mechanics are not the problem, or that the main culprit is elsewhere. Nor am I arguing that Wood's mechanics should not have been improved. I'm an total amateur when it comes to these subjects, but it certainly looked to me like he was doing things that were totally disastrous. I think that he absolutely should have found a competent pitching coach to help him fix this, preferably outside the organization. But to say that the similarity of some kid's mechanics to Wood's portends disaster isn't a fair statement. Wood's case is too complicated. Unless, of course, one can produce other- clearer- examples. List six or seven other guys with comparable mechanics and injury histories, but with more normal backgrounds and characteristics. (In that case, why bring up Wood's name at all?) And even this would not be enough. You'd have to show that the probability of injury coming from this set of pitchers dramatically exceeds the risks of other types of pitchers. If you don't have the data, you've got to provide a long, detailed rationale to prove that you aren't talking out a certain waste disposal oriface. To get back to this kid, let's remember that Wood has a whole boatload of issues. Trying to forecast a kid -for performance or injury- based on mechanics is a complicated issue. And many approaches might be fundamentally confused about what's important. The BP article, linked below, suggests that timing, conditioning, and workload are the things to watch. Is it true? Hell if I know. But if you want to argue with the man, bring your data. By the sounds of it, he's got reams of it. http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5324 Sorry for not looking for other mentions of this article...the search function says that it's temporarily disabled. Edit 6:41 PM board time: fixed italics error

Those names sound like you made them up.... I know, you didn't. I looked it up. But still...

"It's full! Good eye by Neifi!" -Len "It's not like he has the best eye on the planet..." -Len, stunned at what has transpired, a moment later This, after Baker's commen on Cedeno...

How long has Glavine been wearing a Mizuno? A quick web search indicates that he, Rolen, and Smoltz are (at least some of) their reps. Anybody know of others? Used to have one when I was a kid...now I've got my A2000 :D

If I were you, I'd be wary of a roundhouse kick to the face sometime soon. Not that it will do you any good. Any wrong ya do he's gonna seeeeeee...... Sorry for the useless post

Matt Stairs

It's hard to see this happening. Freel's had a DUI http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050406/SPT04/504060362/1071 and an arrest for drunken, disorderly conduct http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/2006/01/freel-arrested.asp

Matt Stairs

It's obvious that we should dump a bunch of players at the deadline- bad signings, guys who won't be back next year, ect. We've had plenty of discussion about who should go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't some of these guys be A type free agents in the offseason? Pierre, for instance. The way all of you are talking, he should be dealt for whatever we can get. Are we really likely to get better returns from a trade than from a top draft pick? Personally, I have no clue- I don't know much about the strength or depth of next year's draft class. But, as a higher-payroll organization, the Cubs don't have a great need for young but low-cieling guys. Obviously, the Cubs should dangle Pierre and see what they can get. But since he isn't really standing in anyone's way, it would seem that there's no reason to prefer trading him now to letting him go in the offseason, unless we can get more from him that way than from the draft. Given the other CF options next year, do we really need to be afraid of him accepting arbitration? If he did, what would you guess he gets in arby (not that it would actually go to that)

A mere flesh wound...

MacPhail is definately a candidate. I'd guess Murph, or someone he was talking to, got confused and mixed the two up.

Looks like Loaiza will be sent to AA... :oops:

n+1

Sir, I thought it had been made it clear that statistics are not to be used on this website. :oops: