a700hitter

It was in its early stages. The catcher stood about 6 feet behind the batter and cought the pitches barehanded after they bounced a few times.

I have posted several times in recent days that it is a reality around here, so it is no biggie. And neither are the descriptive terms for the other side of that spectrum. Now, if you insist on being on my lawn, please mow and water it once a week.

didn't the jays sign Viciedo?

I wonder if his dad's name was Biggie Bignoso?

I liked what I saw of him last spring. He has some thump.

Also, is it insulting if it is accurately descriptive?

Yep. I think it is something that we are all wondering and hoping about.

He was old when I was a kid. RIP

The mark of success will be if the FO bets on the right prospects and maximizes the value of the others in trades. It is good to see if for no other reason than it establishes good currency for the FO.

He has to put out an article, and nothing else is going on. In this regard, your opinion means the same to me as his does. This is not a slam at you, Pal. I like both you and Cafardo.

Yes, I think stats are interesting too, but in those instances where they can't establish or prove a case, we need to resort to our eyes and studied observation. I don't mind when stats are used to refute assertions or support an argument. I hope that you don't mind if I pick apart those stats in the context of a discussion if I think the recited stats are inadequate to prove or disprove a certain position. I do know something for certain. After this discussion, I am very interested to watch Napoli in 2015 in those situations. I am curious to see if he chokes up a bit or shortens his stroke or looks to take the ball the other way. My interest in this regard has been piqued, and isn't that what these forums are intended to do. Too many people (not referring to you) must have their arguments prevail and they demand capitulation from those holding differing views. Now, I am one stubborn SOB so I am not in the habit of capitulating (and especially not with my strongly held beliefs), but I like to read other viewpoints and they change my opinion more often than I let on.

If the stats don't establish anything then what was the purpose of citing them in the context of this discussion, especially in light of the fact that you consider them to be a small sample size? Small sample sizes have no reliability.

Then the stats for that situation have no value as support for any theory. That is what I told Bells when he posted those stats -- that they didn't establish anything.

I think you just dittoed me.

Lol! Don't worry Bells. You challenged my assertion about situational strategy essentially to prove that Naps is doing everything right. I just challenged what those stats mean or prove. I just don't think that making a better effort to adapt to situations would be detrimental to overall performance. I don't think that any stats prove that. Now, it may be true that trying it would mess up Napoli, but I view that as a weakness in his game. That doesn't mean that he is not a good productive player. It means that he can't do certain things that would improve his game. His good productivity doesn't mean that the third base coach should overlook his lack of speed when he is on second base and there is line single to left field. More speed would help his game too, but you can't learn speed.

Then why aren't every hitters stats as good in that situation? Where is he in relation to the league norm in that situation? If he is far above the league norm, the explanation about pitchers pitching to the situation doesn't hold water. Clutch sounds like the only good explanation. Also, you acknowledge that pitchers pitch to situations. Why shouldn't hitters adapt to different situations?

I love your approach and philosophy about baseball.

"takes advantage of ....those situations a little more." That sounds like "clutch". You could have said that in 1 word instead of the 14 that you used.

So the stats provided establish that he knows what he is doing in those situations and couldn't improve by trying something different, but they don't establish: A. that he is doing something different in that situation or B. that he is clutch? How do you account for the difference if it is not A or B?

And he like you understands when I am joking. Plu

And around the circle we go. If he learned to shorten up his swing and make contact it could be better. How do you explain that his stats are better in that situation than his overall stats? Clutch?

I hope that he smokes the minors. If he starts slow, there will be a lot of jealousy directed at him by other players.

I can understand that this would not sit well with US players. I am glad that the Red Sox got him, but $31 million is very high for any 19 year old. Nevermind, that we paid $62 million overall.

So, does this indicate that he is in fact changing his approach in those situations, or merely that he is "clutch"? Lol!

I don't doubt that Napoli tried it, and that it didn't work for him. That doesn't mean that he isn't immune from criticism for his inability to execute in those situations. There is no validity, statistical otherwise, that a swing from the heels method is more productive in those situations.