Lindstrom should be on the team. They need at least one pitcher for when they blow teams out or when getting blown out for mop up duty.

Maybe matt isnt one of the best pitchers from the US but maybe he fits a need they have for the team.

However, you should change the "maybe not" to "no" b/c the real answer to the question (which, at the end of the day, is the actual point being made in this thread) is "no." He doesn't deserve to be on the U.S. team, and only a homer Marlins fan, at this point, would think otherwise.

 

Who's picking the U.S. roster again? Is it Admin Beinfest and Fredi Gonzalez?

 

Oh, wait, it's a bunch of great baseball minds who have ZERO affiliation with the Florida Marlins. THAT'S right.

 

 

How many pitchers have declined the invitation again? "THAT's right."

 

Look around the rosters in MLB and check all the U.S. pitchers around...you couldn't tell me (at least not with a straight face) that Matt Lindstrom is a top 20-25 pitcher in the United States, that's for damn sure. And I'm being nice with the #.

 

Show me a list of RELIEF pitchers that have declined invitations. I'd like to see it since you love referencing it so often.

Lindstrom should be on the team. They need at least one pitcher for when they blow teams out or when getting blown out for mop up duty.

Maybe matt isnt one of the best pitchers from the US but maybe he fits a need they have for the team.

 

 

And there are plenty of other better pitchers who could do such a thing.

Pretty sure the U.S. isn't inviting anyone for "mop-up duty" considering all these players are under contract...thus, a reliever won't be going more than 1 inning very often, if at all.

 

If they wanted "mop-up duty" then I guess Mark Hendrickson deserves to be on the team.

 

It really is amazing how some of you have a hard time admitting that this is a bad selection.

Expected Response: "But we didn't pick 'em...actual baseball minds did...thus, Matt deserves to be on the team." Who cares about career stats / track records? :whistle

However, you should change the "maybe not" to "no" b/c the real answer to the question (which, at the end of the day, is the actual point being made in this thread) is "no." He doesn't deserve to be on the U.S. team, and only a homer Marlins fan, at this point, would think otherwise.

 

Who's picking the U.S. roster again? Is it Admin Beinfest and Fredi Gonzalez?

 

Oh, wait, it's a bunch of great baseball minds who have ZERO affiliation with the Florida Marlins. THAT'S right.

 

 

How many pitchers have declined the invitation again? "THAT's right."

 

Look around the rosters in MLB and check all the U.S. pitchers around...you couldn't tell me (at least not with a straight face) that Matt Lindstrom is a top 20-25 pitcher in the United States, that's for damn sure. And I'm being nice with the #.

 

Show me a list of RELIEF pitchers that have declined invitations. I'd like to see it since you love referencing it so often.

 

1. Why does it have to be a RELIEF pitcher? You do know a starter can do everything a reliever can, right? And that it doesn't work the other way around...right? At least in most cases...

2. I don't know...but if the U.S. selected Matt Lindstrom over Brad Lidge, Jonathan Papelbon, Kerry Wood, and Bobby Jenks on purpose then they must've have been smoking some of the good stuff, when they made the selection. And I'm naming 4 b/c, well...there's no point in naming more. I could easily name more than 4 if you'd like, though.

However, you should change the "maybe not" to "no" b/c the real answer to the question (which, at the end of the day, is the actual point being made in this thread) is "no." He doesn't deserve to be on the U.S. team, and only a homer Marlins fan, at this point, would think otherwise.

 

Who's picking the U.S. roster again? Is it Admin Beinfest and Fredi Gonzalez?

 

Oh, wait, it's a bunch of great baseball minds who have ZERO affiliation with the Florida Marlins. THAT'S right.

 

 

How many pitchers have declined the invitation again? "THAT's right."

 

Look around the rosters in MLB and check all the U.S. pitchers around...you couldn't tell me (at least not with a straight face) that Matt Lindstrom is a top 20-25 pitcher in the United States, that's for damn sure. And I'm being nice with the #.

 

Show me a list of RELIEF pitchers that have declined invitations. I'd like to see it since you love referencing it so often.

 

1. Why does it have to be a RELIEF pitcher? You do know a starter can do everything a reliever can, right? And that it doesn't work the other way around...right? At least in most cases...

2. I don't know...but if the U.S. selected Matt Lindstrom over Brad Lidge, Jonathan Papelbon, and Bobby Jenks on purpose then they must've have been smoking some of the good stuff, when they made the selection.

 

1. Because the U.S. has no reason to invite tons of STARTERS. There are plenty of good RELIEVERS available for RELIEF pitching roles.

2. You don't know. You have no idea. So how about you quit assuming? It only makes an ass out of you.

1. Because the U.S. has no reason to invite tons of STARTERS. There are plenty of good RELIEVERS available for RELIEF pitching roles.

2. You don't know. You have no idea. So how about you quit assuming? It only makes an ass out of you.

 

 

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

Lindstrom should be on the team. They need at least one pitcher for when they blow teams out or when getting blown out for mop up duty.

Maybe matt isnt one of the best pitchers from the US but maybe he fits a need they have for the team.

 

 

And there are plenty of other better pitchers who could do such a thing.

Pretty sure the U.S. isn't inviting anyone for "mop-up duty" considering all these players are under contract...thus, a reliever won't be going more than 1 inning very often, if at all.

 

If they wanted "mop-up duty" then I guess Mark Hendrickson deserves to be on the team.

 

It really is amazing how some of you have a hard time admitting that this is a bad selection.

Expected Response: "But we didn't pick 'em...actual baseball minds did...thus, Matt deserves to be on the team." Who cares about career stats / track records? :whistle

It was a joke dude I know they're not getting guys for mop up duty. Are they're better guys out there yeah.

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

 

Again, you have no clue who was invited and who has declined. For all we know, Lindstrom was one of their top selections. You don't have a clue, so stop acting like you do. They chose him because THEY obviously feel he has the talent, and he deserves to be in their bullpen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter, and theirs do.

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

 

Again, you have no clue who was invited and who has declined. For all we know, Lindstrom was one of their top selections. You don't have a clue, so stop acting like you do. They chose him because THEY obviously feel he has the talent, and he deserves to be in their bullpen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter, and theirs do.

 

 

No, Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee declining is a fact actually.

And the only reason you're defending the move (if this indeed is the case) is b/c Matt Lindstrom just so happens to pitch for your favorite team.

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

 

Again, you have no clue who was invited and who has declined. For all we know, Lindstrom was one of their top selections. You don't have a clue, so stop acting like you do. They chose him because THEY obviously feel he has the talent, and he deserves to be in their bullpen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter, and theirs do.

 

 

No, Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee declining is a fact actually.

And the only reason you're defending the move (if this indeed is the case) is b/c Matt Lindstrom just so happens to pitch for your favorite team.

 

Oh, two pitchers in the entire league. That's REAL strong for your arguement.

 

And no, the only reason I'm defending his selection is due to the fact that you for some reason always claim some sort of superiority over everyone else, with zero fact behind it other than "well, Webb and Lee declined". You have no knowledge of why he was selected, so stop acting like it. Why was Mark DeRosa chosen over Dan Uggla? Obviously Uggla is better, but maybe DeRosa brings something to the table Uggla can't and that's what they wanted. Did it ever occur to you that's the same reason Lindstrom is going to be there? Get over it.

Id like to know why chris ienneta(sp) the catcher from COL is going.

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

 

Again, you have no clue who was invited and who has declined. For all we know, Lindstrom was one of their top selections. You don't have a clue, so stop acting like you do. They chose him because THEY obviously feel he has the talent, and he deserves to be in their bullpen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter, and theirs do.

 

 

No, Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee declining is a fact actually.

And the only reason you're defending the move (if this indeed is the case) is b/c Matt Lindstrom just so happens to pitch for your favorite team.

 

Oh, two pitchers in the entire league. That's REAL strong for your arguement.

 

And no, the only reason I'm defending his selection is due to the fact that you for some reason always claim some sort of superiority over everyone else, with zero fact behind it other than "well, Webb and Lee declined". You have no knowledge of why he was selected, so stop acting like it. Why was Mark DeRosa chosen over Dan Uggla? Obviously Uggla is better, but maybe DeRosa brings something to the table Uggla can't and that's what they wanted. Did it ever occur to you that's the same reason Lindstrom is going to be there? Get over it.

 

 

Is this your counterargument? Well lets see...DeRosa provides versatility. Uggla does not. That was difficult.

That's exactly why DeRosa earns a spot over Uggla. It's pretty clear.

 

Now if you answer me a specific role that Matt Lindstrom provides for the U.S. to give them a better chance to win that guys like Lidge, Papelbon, Wood, Jenks, etc., etc. can't do (notice I just mentioned relievers b/c apparently you don't think a starter can do what a reliever does ), I'd be happy to admit my wrongness and your rightness. Till then...Lindstrom doesn't deserve to be on this team. Give me a stat for a specific situation. SOMETHING. Don't just say "the baseball minds selected him."

So we complain that the Marlins never get any recognition, but when one of their players is recognized and honored with an invitation to represent the USA in the WBC we get upset because apparently he doesn't deserve to be on the team? I don't get it.

And it makes an ass out of you to even think he deserves it. If the U.S. selected Lindstrom over Lidge, Papelbon, Jenks, Kerry Wood, etc., etc. then you're right...I shouldn't be so hard on Lindstrom, in that case. Perhaps it's the "baseball minds" who made the selection who need to be checked up on.

 

What's next? You're gonna tell me Lindstrom's better than the 4 guys I mentioned now? :lol Wait...let me guess...you're gonna tell me to name more relievers, right?

 

As for your #1...get a clue. The U.S. is inviting relievers b/c apparently they have to. Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee...for a FACT declined to go. I saw it on the ESPN sticker, so don't say no. As I said, a great starter = awesome reliever. Some of the best closers in baseball, failed as starting pitchers...that's how much easier the transition is.

 

Again, you have no clue who was invited and who has declined. For all we know, Lindstrom was one of their top selections. You don't have a clue, so stop acting like you do. They chose him because THEY obviously feel he has the talent, and he deserves to be in their bullpen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't matter, and theirs do.

 

 

No, Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee declining is a fact actually.

And the only reason you're defending the move (if this indeed is the case) is b/c Matt Lindstrom just so happens to pitch for your favorite team.

 

Oh, two pitchers in the entire league. That's REAL strong for your arguement.

 

And no, the only reason I'm defending his selection is due to the fact that you for some reason always claim some sort of superiority over everyone else, with zero fact behind it other than "well, Webb and Lee declined". You have no knowledge of why he was selected, so stop acting like it. Why was Mark DeRosa chosen over Dan Uggla? Obviously Uggla is better, but maybe DeRosa brings something to the table Uggla can't and that's what they wanted. Did it ever occur to you that's the same reason Lindstrom is going to be there? Get over it.

 

 

Is this your counterargument? Well lets see...DeRosa provides versatility. Uggla does not. That was difficult.

That's exactly why DeRosa earns a spot over Uggla. It's pretty clear.

 

Now if you answer me a specific role that Matt Lindstrom provides for the U.S. to give them a better chance to win that guys like Lidge, Papelbon, Wood, Jenks, etc., etc. can't do (notice I just mentioned relievers b/c apparently you don't think a starter can do what a reliever does ), I'd be happy to admit my wrongness and your rightness. Till then...Lindstrom doesn't deserve to be on this team. Give me a stat for a specific situation. SOMETHING. Don't just say "the baseball minds selected him."

 

I love how you bold what I said about Uggla and DeRosa, and ignore what I said right after it about how DeRosa brings something to the team that Uggla doesn't. Uggla is a MUCH better player. Your whole arguement with Lindstrom is based on statistics. Why does DeRosa deserve it? Statistically he can't even sniff Uggla's jock. OBVIOUSLY, whoever is chosing this team isn't basing what they want on statistics. They are picking who they want based on different attributes they can contribute with. DeRosa brings versatility, and Lindstrom brings the heat. No numbers to back these selections... only certain talents other players certainly don't posses and can't provide. No one is better at producing solid numbers while playing all over the diamond than DeRosa. Nobody brings the heat better than Lindstrom. Case closed.

I love how you bold what I said about Uggla and DeRosa, and ignore what I said right after it about how DeRosa brings something to the team that Uggla doesn't. Uggla is a MUCH better player. Your whole arguement with Lindstrom is based on statistics. Why does DeRosa deserve it? Statistically he can't even sniff Uggla's jock. OBVIOUSLY, whoever is chosing this team isn't basing what they want on statistics. They are picking who they want based on different attributes they can contribute with. DeRosa brings versatility, and Lindstrom brings the heat. No numbers to back these selections... only certain talents other players certainly don't posses and can't provide. No one is better at producing solid numbers while playing all over the diamond than DeRosa. Nobody brings the heat better than Lindstrom. Case closed.

 

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

 

First of all, I'm only speculating as to why he was chosen, and not stating it as fact (such as yourself). All I'm saying is they both posses certain things that set them apart, that nobody else can offer.

 

Second, you must be a keyboard jock, because in real life the difference between 97MPH and 100MPH is enormous when your 60 1/2 feet away.

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

 

First of all, I'm only speculating as to why he was chosen, and not stating it as fact (such as yourself). All I'm saying is they both posses certain things that set them apart, that nobody else can offer.

 

Second, you must be a keyboard jock, because in real life the difference between 97MPH and 100MPH is enormous when your 60 1/2 feet away.

No, it's really not.

 

On a 97 MPH fastball, it takes 0.43 seconds for the pitch to arrive at home. For a 100 MPH fastball, it takes 0.41 seconds.

 

A batter only has about 62.5% of that time to decided whether or not to swing at that pitch. That means he has 0.266 seconds to hit a 97 MPH fastball and 0.258 seconds to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That's a difference of about 0.008 seconds, or 8/1000th of a second. A batter has an extra 8/1000th of a second to decided how to swing at a 97 MPH instead of a 100 MPH.

 

All this is assuming that the ball travels 60.5 feet, which it doesn't, obviously. It's less than that.

 

 

But once again, the whole point is that it's negligible.

Oh my bad Erik, how do you know the logistics of how they select players for the WBC? Unless you are a coach or the CEO you don't know either. If you aren't, then you assume just like everyone else because you have no idea what they are looking for. Name the pitchers that have declined. Why did they decline? I'd be interested to hear your assumptions.

 

 

Ugh...these aren't assumptions.

I know for sure that Brandon Webb and Cliff Lee declined. I saw that.

 

Don't know about guys like Sabathia, Lincecum, Haren, Halladay, etc., etc., but if you truly think Lindstrom belongs on this team, you're kidding yourself.

 

 

He's an American. He's an MLB pitcher. Therefore, he deserves to be on this team. That should be the end of the discussion. But of course it won't be. And why?? Because it happens to be a very good opportunity for you to take what should be a plus and try to turn it into a negative. It's so good to see most aren't buying into that kind of crap.

 

Even tho I don't like the WBC, I have to say congratulations to this young man. And to all those that have been asked to represent their home countries. Whether they accept the invitation or not, and for whatever reasons they didn't accept, it is an honor to be asked. And I would bet anything that not one of them turned it down because they didn't think they deserved to represent their country.

 

And yet you feel so strongly that he shouldn't be there. So stand up for your beliefs. Actually do something about them instead of mouthing off on a message board in the safety of your own private world. For instance, first time you actually see him (most likely at FanFest in just a few weeks, and please let me be within earshot), inform him that he dosen't deserve to represent the USA and you want him to turn down the opportunity. That would be interesting to witness. If for no other reason, just to see who is kidding who.

 

 

:lol at your reasoning.

You know who else deserves to be on this team? Reggie Abercrombie. He's an American, an MLB player. Therefore, he deserves to be on this team. That should be the end of the discussion.

 

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? Probably not, considering half the stuff you post sounds as ridiculous as this, anyways.

 

Maybe if you took off the teal homer glasses, you'd see what I'm talking about.

 

As for "I bet none of them turned it down because they didn't think they deserved to represent their country"...congratulations, sherlock. Big deal...you just posted an irrelevant quote. By "doesn't deserve to be there" I mean that Lindstrom IS NOT one of the better pitchers in the United States. I don't mean that he doesn't deserve to be there b/c he's not American.

 

But I'm sure the big homer you are...you'll find a way to twist this around too, somehow. B/c well...Lindstrom pitches for the Marlins...so, umm...yeah...he DEFINITELY deserves this. He's definitely better than Sabathia, Lincecum, Halladay, Webb, Lidge, and all those GREAT arms the U.S. has.

 

And as usual, you missed the entire point. Nice going tough guy.

So we complain that the Marlins never get any recognition, but when one of their players is recognized and honored with an invitation to represent the USA in the WBC we get upset because apparently he doesn't deserve to be on the team? I don't get it.

 

Somebody gets it. Teal glasses? Homer?? Nope. Just proud of all our guys that have been asked to represent whatever country they are from. I definetly don't see it as an opportunity to see how I can make myself feel superior over others that are in a position of authority by bashing them.

 

I would imagine most of the top of the line pitchers, relief or SPs, arent going because their teams don't want to risk it. And/or want them in ST for the "eyes on" work. I doubt very much if all the best players at every position are clammering for a spot on the their home team rosters. Matter of fact, we saw that in our own org the last time this event was held.

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

 

First of all, I'm only speculating as to why he was chosen, and not stating it as fact (such as yourself). All I'm saying is they both posses certain things that set them apart, that nobody else can offer.

 

Second, you must be a keyboard jock, because in real life the difference between 97MPH and 100MPH is enormous when your 60 1/2 feet away.

No, it's really not.

 

On a 97 MPH fastball, it takes 0.43 seconds for the pitch to arrive at home. For a 100 MPH fastball, it takes 0.41 seconds.

 

A batter only has about 62.5% of that time to decided whether or not to swing at that pitch. That means he has 0.266 seconds to hit a 97 MPH fastball and 0.258 seconds to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That's a difference of about 0.008 seconds, or 8/1000th of a second. A batter has an extra 8/1000th of a second to decided how to swing at a 97 MPH instead of a 100 MPH.

 

All this is assuming that the ball travels 60.5 feet, which it doesn't, obviously. It's less than that.

 

 

But once again, the whole point is that it's negligible.

 

Have you ever stood in a batters box and looked at a 97 MPH fastball, and then a 100 MPH fastball?

 

I suggest you do, and then tell me there's no difference.

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

 

First of all, I'm only speculating as to why he was chosen, and not stating it as fact (such as yourself). All I'm saying is they both posses certain things that set them apart, that nobody else can offer.

 

Second, you must be a keyboard jock, because in real life the difference between 97MPH and 100MPH is enormous when your 60 1/2 feet away.

No, it's really not.

 

On a 97 MPH fastball, it takes 0.43 seconds for the pitch to arrive at home. For a 100 MPH fastball, it takes 0.41 seconds.

 

A batter only has about 62.5% of that time to decided whether or not to swing at that pitch. That means he has 0.266 seconds to hit a 97 MPH fastball and 0.258 seconds to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That's a difference of about 0.008 seconds, or 8/1000th of a second. A batter has an extra 8/1000th of a second to decided how to swing at a 97 MPH instead of a 100 MPH.

 

All this is assuming that the ball travels 60.5 feet, which it doesn't, obviously. It's less than that.

 

 

But once again, the whole point is that it's negligible.

 

Have you ever stood in a batters box and looked at a 97 MPH fastball, and then a 100 MPH fastball?

 

I suggest you do, and then tell me there's no difference.

Ah...that's annoying....any idea how long that math took for you to just condescend through it?

 

Well, I say Erick asks his brother, a former Angels farmhand, if he could tell the difference. Help us settle this.

So Lindstrom was chosen b/c he throws 100? As opposed to a guy like Papelbon who throws a soft 97-98...and is better?

 

You make no sense.

 

Selecting a player to fit into a team b/c of his versatility (like DeRosa) makes sense. Selecting a player b/c he simply throws 2 or 3 mph more than another pitcher makes no sense.

 

First of all, I'm only speculating as to why he was chosen, and not stating it as fact (such as yourself). All I'm saying is they both posses certain things that set them apart, that nobody else can offer.

 

Second, you must be a keyboard jock, because in real life the difference between 97MPH and 100MPH is enormous when your 60 1/2 feet away.

No, it's really not.

 

On a 97 MPH fastball, it takes 0.43 seconds for the pitch to arrive at home. For a 100 MPH fastball, it takes 0.41 seconds.

 

A batter only has about 62.5% of that time to decided whether or not to swing at that pitch. That means he has 0.266 seconds to hit a 97 MPH fastball and 0.258 seconds to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That's a difference of about 0.008 seconds, or 8/1000th of a second. A batter has an extra 8/1000th of a second to decided how to swing at a 97 MPH instead of a 100 MPH.

 

All this is assuming that the ball travels 60.5 feet, which it doesn't, obviously. It's less than that.

 

 

But once again, the whole point is that it's negligible.

 

Have you ever stood in a batters box and looked at a 97 MPH fastball, and then a 100 MPH fastball?

 

I suggest you do, and then tell me there's no difference.

Ah...that's annoying....any idea how long that math took for you to just condescend through it?

 

Well, I say Erick asks his brother, a former Angels farmhand, if he could tell the difference. Help us settle this.

 

Well, I have had several conversations regarding this issue with my former 2nd Team All-State, D-I offered and MLB prospect brother who was one of the nations top hitters from the class of '06, and he has told me there's quite a difference. As well as several other D-I and minor league players I have grown up with my entire life. They all confirm this as well.

A couple yrs ago in HS i faced a kid named Matt latos about whos now in the padres minor league system and hes the fastest pitcher i have ever faced. He was about 6,5 6,6 and could bring it. Most reports said he hovered around 95 touching 99 on occasion. the game i faced him a scout told our coach he hit 97 12 times but mostly stayed around 94 and all i can say is i could definently tell 94 from 97.

No, it's really not.

 

On a 97 MPH fastball, it takes 0.43 seconds for the pitch to arrive at home. For a 100 MPH fastball, it takes 0.41 seconds.

 

A batter only has about 62.5% of that time to decided whether or not to swing at that pitch. That means he has 0.266 seconds to hit a 97 MPH fastball and 0.258 seconds to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That's a difference of about 0.008 seconds, or 8/1000th of a second. A batter has an extra 8/1000th of a second to decided how to swing at a 97 MPH instead of a 100 MPH.

 

All this is assuming that the ball travels 60.5 feet, which it doesn't, obviously. It's less than that.

 

 

But once again, the whole point is that it's negligible.

 

Have you ever stood in a batters box and looked at a 97 MPH fastball, and then a 100 MPH fastball?

 

I suggest you do, and then tell me there's no difference.

Ah...that's annoying....any idea how long that math took for you to just condescend through it?

 

Well, I say Erick asks his brother, a former Angels farmhand, if he could tell the difference. Help us settle this.

 

Well, I have had several conversations regarding this issue with my former 2nd Team All-State, D-I offered and MLB prospect brother who was one of the nations top hitters from the class of '06, and he has told me there's quite a difference. As well as several other D-I and minor league players I have grown up with my entire life. They all confirm this as well.

Joe Morgan was quoted as once saying that once you hit 97, it's all about the same.

 

That said, he was quoted as saying that he could tell the difference between a 100 MPH and a 101 MPH.

 

Biggio was also quoted as saying there was very little difference but his former teammate and fellow future HOFer Jeff Bagwell said it's much harder to hit a 100 MPH fastball.

 

That said, the eyes of a fighter pilot are said to be able to recognize pictures flashed at 1/220th. That's 4.5/1000ths of a second. So, I'll concede it is POSSIBLE that there is a difference to MLB hitters. To me, once you get as high as 90, I can't even tell.

Joe Morgan was quoted as once saying that once you hit 97, it's all about the same.

 

Are you seriously going to quote Joe Morgan and expect us to take that as a valid statement? :lol

 

Sure he's probably the greatest 2nd baseman to ever play the game, but he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to analyzing baseball. Havn't you ever read FJM?