a700hitter

Welcome. Are you originally from Somerville?

No, he doesn't provide valuable contributions to the baseball discussion. He's a nasty prick who should post elsewhere. I don't think that I am being subtle at all.

When it regards Red Sox players that I have seen play hundreds of times, I would trust my observations, but I can't think of any situations where that has happened. Until now, the stats have supported my observations in those cases.

The longer fingers he felt added to his command and velocity. Long limbs and height gives extra leverage. I don't have a PhD in Physics, but I am pretty sure that is true. Height alone doesn't make a pitcher better, but taller pitchers do have a physical advantage.

There is definitely a pitcher's body- type reflected on major league rosters. There are very few starting pitchers under 6'2". I don't know how much more difficult it is for a big guy to master repetitive mechanics. I think that varies tremendously depending on the guy's delivery. I think the advantage of being tall and long-limbed is very real. When I was a little kid in the 1960's my father explained to me how the big guys had the advantage of leverage. Longer arms produce more leverage. Longer legs result in a longer stride and more leverage. Big hands with long fingers give more leverage and increase the ability to manipulate the baseball and command different pitches. He always told me that good pitchers had big hands, and throughout my life I have observed that whenever I met a major league pitcher. Tom Seaver is not much taller than me, but his hands are enormous. I have large hands, but my hand disappeared into Seaver's when we shook hands. I think there might be some validity to the theory that big guys have a tougher time mastering their deliveries, but that is far outweighed by the advantages of being tall.

Lol!

Take it where comes from. He is just here to criticize other posters. He adds nothing to the baseball discussion. He should take his act elsewhere.

What was the revelation about Howard versus Pujols that opened your eyes?

Not true at all. The less opportunity that I have to watch a player the more I rely on the stats. Conversely, the more I see a guy play, the less I need the stats. At the extreme, I don't need advanced stats to form an opinion about Red Sox players as I watch almost every game. When I look at their stats, it is out of curiosity and not to guide my opinion. The stats for the Red Sox almost always line up with my opinions.

I don't think he ever played at any professional level, but I am not sure about amateur levels.

Baseball fans around my age have been following Bill James since the 1960's.

Hey s*** for Brains, take your obnoxious act elsewhere.

It is funny that the devoted sabremetricians view themselves as "new school" yet their godfather is Bill James (age 66).

Sociopaths are not always biased, but they are never reliable.

Thanks.

McLain is not a very reliable source. He is convicted drug dealer and embezzler of pension funds. He has been convicted of at least two major felonies. He's not very reputable. His word is worth nothing.

He'd be a loveable town drunk like the guy on the Andy Griffith Show.

Neither do I. I thought McLain was dead.

It seems that every GM's administration runs its course, and DD 'S had run its course in Detroit. His system was not working at the end. Sometimes a fresh start is needed, and baseball is big on recycling at FO levels.

He would be a good town drunk imo.

The Mets are so cheap that they almost never fire a manager while he is under contract.

Pete, you were a child of privilege. Lol!

Kimmi, you throw around this term "bias" in this discussion about Ben and DD. Speaking for myself, I was forming my opinion on the facts that I know. The fan in me doesn't extend to FO personnel. I think that they are all fungible. I have already acknowledged that DD wasn't doing a good job at the end in Detroit. I also admitted to not knowing the terms surrounding DD's release from Detroit. I haven't read that article from which you quote DD, but it indicates that the parting was not mutual. I would still like to know if the terms called for the Tigers to continue to pay him. Just curiosity on my part. Neither BC nor DD were doing a good job as GM when they got fired. Being that baseball Front Offices are a small closed group, the same people get recirculated. DD had the longer and more successful record of building a successful franchise so he immediately got offered an equivalent position with a premium franchise. Ben's record was at worst mainly a failure and at best it was incomplete, so he wasn't offered an equivalent position by a premier franchise. The Yankees expressed interest in him for a much lesser role and one or two lesser franchises expressed an interest in interviewing him. My opinion on Ben in my signature remains unchanged. He got fired because he was doing a bad job.

Especially if fielding is so critically important in building a winning team.

I think the timing of DD's release and his hiring by Boston is more than coincidental. I am not sure what the terms of DD's release were with the Tigers. The reports clearly were that he was released from his contract. When you get fired, the club is still responsible for paying the employee for the remaining term of the contract. If the Tigers were no responsible for paying DD after they parted ways, then he wasn't fired and it was a mutual decision. I haven't seen any reports on the specific terms of DD's release. The demotion/firing of BC by hiring DD was clearly not a mutual decision with Red Sox management and BC. BC was clearly fired. I haven't seen definitive proof on DD's situation.