Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Bucketfoot Al

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 538280
    Bill, Yaz wasn't necessarily an angel either. He was very cold, not a guy who would be a good team leader or a good friend.

    And Yaz/Williams was only one of a long list of craziness in your LF list. Could you address all the other questions I asked?
    I don't care if a player is the devil, if he gives me 100%. I have forgiven Anson, Cobb, McGraw, Hornsby, D. Allen, Belle, Bonds, for very serious crap. But you cannot charge them with subterfuge against winning.

    Wheat ahead of Henderson? Duffy Lewis ahead of Delahanty, Stargell, Kiner, Raines? Belle ahead of Stargell? Raines 21st? And I hope you forgot Turkey Stearnes.
    Like Wheat over Ricky due to Rickey going for walks to a ridiculous degree with his exaggerated crouch.

    Like Lewis and am trying to find a way to give respect to glove men and not merely the best hitters. I have a set of favorites who I am not sure what to do with, but am trying to insert in my rankings, even though their hitting was not up to par. It's an on-going problem, not sure how to proceed. I'll work it out eventually, somehow.

    I like Belle's peak, and forgive him his head problems. His best seasons are similar to Thomas, Dick Allen. Stargell I like too, but like Albert more.

    Raines I haven't dealt with yet, and he is scheduled to move up. I find it hard to keep up with a lot of '66-85 players, who I honestly don't know a lot about, and it's not that I'm against them, as much as know too little about them. So as fast as people brief me on that class of players, I move them up.

    I like Turkey Stearns, but I place him below some of his peers, like Torriente, Dihigo, Hill, Suttles, and some of the other NLers. I haven't finished processing a lot of the Negro League guys.

    After Wheat in my list, my order is pretty fluid. Not really prepared to debate them or fight it out.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-10-2006, 08:05 PM.

    Comment


    • --You know I think Bill has a point. If Williams had just been willing to hit to LF he might have put up some big numbers . Virtually all the great stars had huge egos and did things their own way, sometimes to the detriment of their teams. What hurt their team more; Cobbs suspensions, Ruth's mistakenly believing he was a good basestealer (well and his suspensions too) or Williams stubbornly pulling the ball - with just a fair amount of success ?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by leecemark
        --You know I think Bill has a point. If Williams had just been willing to hit to LF he might have put up some big numbers

        OK. I can recognize well-intentioned humor.


        Virtually all the great stars had huge egos and did things their own way, sometimes to the detriment of their teams. What hurt their team more; Cobbs suspensions, Ruth's mistakenly believing he was a good basestealer (well and his suspensions too) or Williams stubbornly pulling the ball - with just a fair amount of success ?
        While it may very well be true that to reach the top of one's field required a massive ego, I do ask myself if their so-called arrogance really did hurt their teams. Sincerely.

        Did Cobb's refusal to incorporate more long-ball hitting hurt his team, once The Babe established that it was the way to go?

        Possibly, yes. But we need to consider the risks of failure too. Cobb faced a 370 foot RF foul line, which no doubt converted a lot of his long shots into loud outs. So he would have had to chart a faultless course in when to go for the long ball and when to play it safer.

        So I don't think his playing it conservatively was 'arrogance'.

        Did Babe hurt his team by running, after he proved he wasn't particularly gifted at that aspect of the game? Yes, he probably did. But he didn't try it that often to where he was running his team out of a lot of potential runs. Babe was CS 117 times in his career. Only once over 14 times in a season.

        I do think that was arrogant, but nothing like Williams going to RF every time up. Not even in the same class of BB 'crime'.

        Ty/Babe did have a lot of BB chutzpah, but Wagner/Gehrig didn't. And others also lacked arrogance. Collins/Sisler lacked arrogance or ego.

        Bill

        Comment


        • --Eddie Collins nickname was "Cocky". That suggests he displayed no shortage of self confidence.
          --I didn't say anything about Cobb's failure to adjust to the modern power game. As you point out, he was as stubborn in that as Williams was in not hitting the other way though.
          --Williams has the 2nd best (some people would even argue best) hitting record of any player in history. That suggestions his sticking to his own style of hitting didn't exactly hurt his team.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by leecemark
            Williams has the 2nd best (some people would even argue best) hitting record of any player in history. That suggestions his sticking to his own style of hitting didn't exactly hurt his team.
            Imperfect logic. Babe hit the other way when they tried to shift against him.

            Babe was 'stubborn' too, but wasn't stupid/arrogant about it. Suggesting Williams couldn't have improved his performance, simply because he was an excellent hitter displays imperfect logic.

            Cobb not going for power in the 20's, while stubborn, wasn't born of arrogance. It was a risk-assessment judgment call, by the smartest player who ever lived. He was facing a long, 370 RF. In a way, it showed admirable lack of ego. He wasn't over-valuing his relative gifts. Not the same thing at all.

            But I'm sure you'll view my appraisal of these matters as covering for Cobb, but it's not.

            Bill
            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-10-2006, 10:57 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
              Imperfect logic. Babe hit the other way when they tried to shift against him.

              Babe was 'stubborn' too, but wasn't stupid/arrogant about it. Suggesting Williams couldn't have improved his performance, simply because he was an excellent hitter displays imperfect logic.

              Cobb not going for power in the 20's, while stubborn, wasn't born of arrogance. It was a risk-assessment judgment call, by the smartest player who ever lived. He was facing a long, 370 RF. In a way, it showed admirable lack of ego. He wasn't over-valuing his relative gifts. Not the same thing at all.

              But I'm sure you'll view my appraisal of these matters as covering for Cobb, but it's not.

              Bill
              But what if in trying to adjust his hitting, Williams became less of a hitter? You're assuming he could make a fluid adjustment and not lose anything that made him great the way he was. For Williams, perhaps his hitting was most valuable to stay at his style despite the shift then in trying to adapt his style to go the other way. He might have lost more hits that way for various reasons.

              While posting this, I'm thinking back to Jason Giambi last year. He struggled for the first two months of the season, and a lot of that struggling had to do with him trying to go the other way and use the entire field. When he scrapped that plan and just went back to what he did best, pulling the ball, his season took off. A player has to do what's best for him; forced changes could actually make things work though in theory they might seem better.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
                Like Wheat over Ricky due to Rickey going for walks to a ridiculous degree with his exaggerated crouch.
                Change that to "getting on base to a ridiculous degree with his exaggerated crouch". It's ironic you penalize Ted for his strange unwillingness to go the other way, claiming it hurt the team, and when Rickey does something strange that HELPS the team you also penalize him. Just look at Wheat and Rickey, Bill. Look at them on a BBRef page or in the record book and try to tell me if there's any way in hell Wheat is better. There isn't. Personally, I rate Rickey the 15th greatest player of all time, Wheat doesn't even make the top 100.

                I like Belle's peak, and forgive him his head problems. His best seasons are similar to Thomas, Dick Allen. Stargell I like too, but like Albert more.
                He did have a monster peak, certainly, but not anywhere near Thomas or Allen, maybe near Stargell. Don't be fooled by the traditional numbers. Look beyond those and you'll see Allen and Thomas were MUCH better hitters. Belle certainly did just as much or more than Williams in his career to hurt his teams.

                Raines I haven't dealt with yet, and he is scheduled to move up. I find it hard to keep up with a lot of '66-85 players, who I honestly don't know a lot about, and it's not that I'm against them, as much as know too little about them. So as fast as people brief me on that class of players, I move them up.
                Just to give you a little backgroud-Raines is like Rickey Jr, pretty much. Did everything Rickey did, just not quite as good. Not like Rickey as a person at all though. While Rickey was always talking and showboating Raines was an extremely quiet, reserved player. IMO, deserved two MVP awards in the 1980s.

                I like Turkey Stearns, but I place him below some of his peers, like Torriente, Dihigo, Hill, Suttles, and some of the other NLers. I haven't finished processing a lot of the Negro League guys.
                All right, but that goes against most of what I've read. I think Stearnes was just a bit behind Torriente, but ahead of all those other guys.

                Comment


                • Bill,

                  I'm going to have to echo those sentiments. I've just finished my left field index. I'll send it along to you as I don't feel like broadcasting results at this point. Suffice it to say, Henderson ranks very high and Bucketfoot Al also ranks a little higher than I remember, but not much higher.
                  I am the author of "Checks and Imbalances" and "The State of Baseball Management."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 538280
                    Change that to "getting on base to a ridiculous degree with his exaggerated crouch". It's ironic you penalize Ted for his strange unwillingness to go the other way, claiming it hurt the team, and when Rickey does something strange that HELPS the team you also penalize him. Just look at Wheat and Rickey, Bill. Look at them on a BBRef page or in the record book and try to tell me if there's any way in hell Wheat is better. There isn't. Personally, I rate Rickey the 15th greatest player of all time, Wheat doesn't even make the top 100.

                    I never said that Zack was a better player than The Rickey. Just that I like Zack better. Never gave me a reason to deduct points from him. But to tell you the truth, Chris, I have to agree with you on this one. I must learn to forgive the petty stuff I hold against some guys and give them their justice. So see? I am open to debate and let myself be influenced by solid argumentation. Rickey will go up next time I get around to it. I'm so caught up with my projects/research that I don't spend enough time on my player evaluations. So thanks for that!

                    He did have a monster peak, certainly, but not anywhere near Thomas or Allen, maybe near Stargell. Don't be fooled by the traditional numbers. Look beyond those and you'll see Allen and Thomas were MUCH better hitters. Belle certainly did just as much or more than Williams in his career to hurt his teams.

                    Belle was certainly controversial often enough, but I always felt he couldn't help himself. Like emotionally disabled. And some of his seasons were very like Thomas/Allen. Wasn't as long as Thomas' and Allen didn't consolidate his great seasons.

                    Just to give you a little backgroud-Raines is like Rickey Jr, pretty much. Did everything Rickey did, just not quite as good. Not like Rickey as a person at all though. While Rickey was always talking and showboating Raines was an extremely quiet, reserved player. IMO, deserved two MVP awards in the 1980s.
                    Raines will move up. Thanks, Chris.


                    All right, but that goes against most of what I've read. I think Stearnes was just a bit behind Torriente, but ahead of all those other guys.
                    I wish I had more time/inclination to finish up readings about so many different subjects. Takes a lot of time.

                    Thanks, Chris.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DoubleX
                      But what if in trying to adjust his hitting, Williams became less of a hitter? You're assuming he could make a fluid adjustment and not lose anything that made him great the way he was. For Williams, perhaps his hitting was most valuable to stay at his style despite the shift then in trying to adapt his style to go the other way. He might have lost more hits that way for various reasons.

                      While posting this, I'm thinking back to Jason Giambi last year. He struggled for the first two months of the season, and a lot of that struggling had to do with him trying to go the other way and use the entire field. When he scrapped that plan and just went back to what he did best, pulling the ball, his season took off. A player has to do what's best for him; forced changes could actually make things work though in theory they might seem better.
                      It's unlikely that a hitter with Williams ability would be hurt by going the other way more, especially when him doing so, would disallow the shift to continue being implemented. If we consider the impact, we should take things back to the beginning of his career, and assume what would have happened given his known ability. Instead of thinking he'd make a "switch" in approach at a later age like Giambi did.

                      No doubt he pulled the ball better than he went to left, but there comes a point when you must take what is given to you. Taking a pitch just off the outside corner is nice, but when you're Ted Williams, the man on your team, you gotta be swinging the bat imo, and even more so when you're not exactly Rickey Henderson on the bases.

                      If you're saying that by him going the other way more, then he would fail to remain the same hitter on the inside pitch, I might agree to a certain degree. At the same time though, he'd open up more room over there for when he did pull the ball, likely increasing his numbers overall. From a pitcher's standpoint, there would be a lot more to worry about if Williams had put more dents into the monster.

                      To think he could have put up even better numbers than he did, is a pretty scary thought. Really it worked out pretty well for him as it was, so who can really say what he should have done. He had 20 more singles in his career than Babe, in nearly 700 less AB, and Babe did go the other way and bunt to keep them honest.
                      "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

                      ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
                        Imperfect logic. Babe hit the other way when they tried to shift against him.

                        Babe was 'stubborn' too, but wasn't stupid/arrogant about it.
                        I posted on that long ago Bill. I'm not here to say that Babe's reaction to the shift was better or more effective than Williams, Bond's, Giambi or others who refused to go the other way but he discouraged shifting on him right away.

                        He would go the other way and in one game he really challenged the shift. One single to left, right down the line. One line drive over the third base bag for a double. To top it off a bunt down the third base line rolled into left field for another double. After that last one Ruth standing on second, laughing slapping his thighs and gesturing to the left side of the field, pointing at the SS who was the right side of second base in shallow RF. Oh and one strikeout.
                        Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-11-2006, 02:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • You can be sure a can of worms was opened here, I've see it happen on other boards. Any mention any hint that Ted should have gone the other way not all the time , even some times, will really get the ball rolling... and rolling... and rolling.
                          Don't even mention that Ted could have helped his team " in some situations" by swinging at a pitch a fraction out of the strike zone or borderline with men in scoring position in some game situations.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by yanks0714
                            First off, Mel Ott was a RF'er, not a LF'er.
                            That was from XX's post. He claimed Ott was someone (along with Simmons) that we infrequently talk about.

                            I'm a big Al Simmons fan but I can't put him behind Rickey Henderson who I consider the 2nd best LF'er in AL history behind Ted Williams. I DO put him ahead of Joe JAckson and Yax as the 3rd best LF'er in AL history.
                            Overall, besides Williams and Henderson, I have Simmons behind Musial and Barry Bonds (I penalize Bonds by dropping him behind Stan).
                            So that makes Al Simmons the 5th best LF'er of all time in my book. He's just not looked at as being great because in his own time he played in Jimmie Foxx's shadown on the A's as well as Ruth's and Gehrig's. While he wasn't at their level I think he was right behind them.
                            I'll tend to agree with most of that. I'm certain I have Rickey higher than Simmons, but I'll have to re-check, considering how both have fluctuated in them.
                            Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
                            I hope that's all.

                            Comment


                            • It seems as if some have missed my point here. When I speak of Williams hitting to LF, we are not speaking as if he should have done so for the rest of his career. When they shifted on Babe, he merely hit to LF and then the other team would STOP ShIFTING!!! You defeat it by hitting free doubles, triples to LF, and then they MUST STOP SHIFTING. And it's that simple.

                              And after they STOP ShIFTING, you GO BACK TO BASHING TO RF!!!! And with a RF not bunched with defenders, your hitting is significantly much improved!! Does that not follow automatically?? By definition?

                              And that is what I meant when I said that Ted Williams hurt his team every day once they started to shift on him and he started throwing one at bat after another. I don't care if he hit 1.000. If he wasn't trying to put the odds in favor of his team, and HE WASN'T, THE MAN WAS THROWING GAMES!!

                              And another thing. Many here have suggested that perhaps he might have hit better by pulling the ball to his power field, and by cutting his stroke, he might have lessened his value as a hitter.

                              This might sound like a reasonable argument, and if I didn't know what I know, I might be open to it. But I know better. Ted was a student of hitting. And he was very tight with Ty Cobb, his good pal. Ty showed him how he could go to LF, WITHOUT CUTTING HIS STROKE IN ANY WAY.

                              Mr. Cobb was also a student of hitting. And his record proves he was the most valuable, effective, astute hitting coach who ever lived. Taught Heilmann, Simmons, Cochrane, Dykes, O'Doul, Manush, Flagstad, Fothergill, Wingo, Haney, Fonseca, and tons of others. Ty was the only known hitter who could hit murderous line drives down the LF line, as a left-handed hitter, on an inside pitch.

                              Here is how he did it, and what he showed to Ted. When he noticed that there was a hole in LF, or the LFers was shading him too far to CF, he'd crowd the plate. Of course, that would invite the pitcher to come hard inside, to drive him back off the inside corner. Simple, old-fashioned ball.

                              But here's the twist. Ty would crowd the plate, inviting the brush-back, and knowing he was going to get it on the very next pitch. When the pitcher came in with that hard inside pitch, Ty would, while the pitcher was winding up, subtly, unnoticeably, move his back foot towards the 1st base dugout. He'd swivel his body alignment to where he was almost facing the 3rd base dugout. He was then so re-aligned, his back was facing the pitcher, instead of his right shoulder.

                              And in that position, he could take his full cut, not cutting his stroke whatsoever, and whistle that inside pitch down the LF foul line.

                              One would have thought that sharp-eyed observers would have picked up on his trick. But they didn't. He pulled it over and over again, and they never caught on. Maybe they couldn't believe he could actually do it, and never noticed how he'd subtly shifted his feet and swiveled his body alignment. Ty only did that at the very last moment, and most people were watching the pitcher deliver the ball, and not studying Ty while he awaited the pitch.

                              And that is what Ty showed Ted. Ted, who was supposed to be such a smart hitter. Smart my greasy butt! He could have improved his performance many points if he had the humility to follow a few of Ty's simple, but brilliant hitting tips.

                              And that is why I posted so over the top on Ted. I had my reasons. Always do.

                              Bill Burgess
                              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-11-2006, 04:29 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
                                And that is what Ty showed Ted. Ted, who was supposed to be such a smart hitter. Smart my greasy butt! He could have improved his performance many points if he had the humility to follow a few of Ty's simple, but brilliant hitting tips.

                                And that is why I posted so over the top on Ted. I had my reasons. Always do.

                                Bill Burgess
                                Bill, much less biased than before, good job.

                                But, don't you think Ty could have probably benifited from, in his career, listening to some of Ted's hitting instruction? Not to say Cobb was impatient, but he didn't draw the walks like Ted/Babe. He had to swing away.

                                Not to say Cobb didn't have great power, but perhaps, if he went with Ted's style and tried to uppercut the ball he'd be even better. I know it would have gone against the times, but still, the same things could really be applied for Cobb.

                                Another thing, maybe if Cobb would have listened to Ted and his thoughts on black players and Negro Leaguers, he'd be liked a whole lot more by a lot of people, including myself?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X