a700hitter

I have a Nixon story. When worked at the IRS (1983-1986) the Tax Court would hear cases at 26 Federal Plaza in the same building that Nixon maintained his offices during those years. Many of the IRS attorneys purchased his memoirs and brought it up to his office for a signature. His assistant would take the books and he would sign it by the next day. He had waived his Secret Service protection and would walk around the city by himself without any bodyguards. I never met him, but many of my colleagues met him in the building. He was awkward with small talk, but when he did initiate small talk it was always about sports.

My questions would have been about Geopolitics and Triangular Diplomacy -- light subjects. I wouldn't want to get into the realm of emotion bringing up baseball. BTW, FTR, the Kissinger story is a true story and the post about seeing Ben kick a dog was just a joke.

I peed at a urinal next to Henry Kissinger in the late 1980's and had a million questions that I wanted to ask him, but resisted the urge even when we were at the sink.

I am okay with it as long as he stops the ball and prevents the runner from advancing.

Maybe DD is a jerk. A lot of public figures are jerks, probably more than we think. I don't remember which sportswriter said it, but he said that the fastest way to stop being a fan is to cover a team on a daily basis. For that reason, I really have very little curiosity about players off the field. If the guy plays hard for the Red Sox, I am a fan. As far as the FO goes, I really don't give a hoot about any of them. They might as well be nameless and faceless as far as I am concerned. I just hope they put together a good team.

Thanks for the recommendations.

No. My daughter and son-in-law have been living there for almost 3 years. Great place to live. I go to Christopher's a lot when I am visiting. Do you have any restaurant recommendations?

Howard also played in a ridiculously small bandbox that is 360 feet in the power alleys. and strikes out a ton. Pujols is so clearly the superior ballplayer just with the eye test and he had a great Pujols' year. Anyone who thought he was in the discussion with Pujols was letting the stats tell them a lie. In that case, the eye test was enough.

I am still hoping that DD can move him or the human donut at 3B. Either move would solve a lot of problems.

Informative post from someone who has been through the process. What yers were you doing this? My Great Nephew (age 13) has been going through this scrutiny for a couple of years already. They look at every little thing. The kid can hit 80 mph which the coaches and scouts all love, but he doesn't through completely over the top. They don't like that his natural delivery is 3/4+. He just came back from early spring training in Vero Beach for the Underarmour team, and in February he will be going to the DR to play against the kids training at the MLB complexes.

You needed advanced sabremetrics to prove to you that Ryan Howard shouldn't have been in the discussion with Pujols?

I did not disagree with that study because I am a traditionalist, but rather because I viewed the data as insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion. I can be persuaded by data, but I do examine the data and don't accept all studies as proof of the the hypothesis. Questioning the integrity of data doesn't make me a traditionalist. You on the other hand state that you believe that there is a place in the game for the sac bunt despite the clear mathematical percentages that indicate otherwise. I think that makes you a traditionalist.

It isn't what I believe. I have not said once that big pitchers are better than small pitchers. I have said that the baseball establishment prefers the big guys because they have the raw tools to throw at high velocity. I think that the physics are definitely in favor of the big guys for velocity. That has nothing to do with bias. If there is a bias in play, it is a bias in favor of velocity as opposed to other attributes like command. It is not a bias against short pitchers because they are short.

Scouts like velocity, and the bigger guys have the velocity, and the extra leverage reduces stress on the arm thus helping durability.

With the same musculature, the extra leverage produces more velocity. That is just physics. You did not answer my question. Is velocity overemphasized in scouting?

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2016/01/06/dennis-eckersley-isnt-about-to-welcome-pete-rose-to-cooperstown/

Agreed. It is just the explanation that I have heard. I am sure that he had a few writers that hated him.

You sir are in danger of being labeled a traditionalist and excluded from New School thinking.

The first Hall of Fame class was elected in 1936. There was a backlog of several generations of retired players. The backlog situation still existed until the early 1970's, which is why it used to be a very big deal if someone was elected on his first ballot. Today, first ballot does not carry the same significance. It was because of the backlog in 1936 that many All Time greats did not get unanimous votes.

Uh, okay. Case closed. I guess the talent evaluators are all doing a bad job. What about velocity? Is that over-emphasized too, because that is what the big boys bring with them? The little guys generally don't throw as hard. It takes more effort for them to get to the velocity levels of the big boys, because the big boys have the advantage of additional leverage. It is just physics.

I don't believe that speed always disrupts a defense, but in some cases it most definitely does. I am not going to go back into all the data that was used in the study you presented and have the same discussion all over again, but I didn't agree that the study used sufficient data to yield a definitive answer. That study was faulty imo. Also, it is my recollection that the study was presented to show that speed on the bases did not improve the performance of the following batters. That is not the same thing as disrupting a defense. Even if that study proved that speed is not generally a disruptive factor, that doesn't rule it out in every case. In my experience , I have seen it be very disruptive. I think that anyone who remembers the 1967 World Series can tell you that Lou Brock was a tremendous disruptive force. Anyone who is still alive who saw Jackie Robinson run the bases in the late 1940's and early 1950's can testify how he disrupted team defense. I think you picked the wrong example if you want to talk about traditionalist views versus nontraditionalist views. If you want to talk about traditionalist views, I believe that there is still a place in the game for the sacrifice bunt despite the fact that my father told me at age 8 all about how giving up an out negatively affected the percentages for scoring runs. I don't believe in little ball and I understand the percentages when you give up an out, but sometimes I do think that a bunt is in order. If you want to call me a traditionalist for that, fine. I guess that you believe sacrifice bunts should never happen and that the skill should not be taught.

It translates into more velocity generated from increased leverage, i.e. more raw talent that pitching coaches think they can mold. It doesn't guarantee success more so than a short pitcher. However, it is telling that there are not many starting pitchers on major league rosters under 6'2". In the general population more people are under 6'2" so I think size might have something to do with this. I am sure though that your husband appreciates that you think size doesn't matter.

Our bodies may betray us, but our minds remain sharp.

One time I saw Ben kick a dog.

I think the demand is down a lot. Last season was the first time in eons that they have made season ticket packages available. This off season they have many types of season ticket packages being marketed and there are plenty still available.