Vernons Pools wrote:

QUOTE:
And Jon Lester is ACE.

Couldn't agree more. I wish he could start every game.

K-Rod is a strange little man, isn't he? I guess all good closers are part psychopath (Pap included).

On the throwing thing, it looks to me that baseball fielders get sideways on to their target, point their shoulders in the direction of the target, plant front foot and the throw comes from a higher but flatter arm position (not sure about this last bit). There almost seems to be a deliberate pause from collecting the ball to allow lining up the shoulders and planting the foot before throwing accurately.

When watching this for the first time I find myself thinking 'get a move on'. It seems that in amongst the speed of the moment there is deliberate technique used which improves the accuracy.

Cricket throwing does seem to me to be less technical although without the use of the glove to collect the ball I would argue that cricketers have more to do to collect the ball 'barehand' so the throw is more hurried.

There should be a deliberate pause to establish exactly the alignment you describe, though if one is talkng about an "outfielder" fielding an easy "fly ball" (i.e., one that he doesn't have to run far to catch), a good one will set himself up so that the transition from catching position to throwing position is essentially seamless.

I'm not sure what you mean by both "higher" and "flatter"; they would seem to me to be opposites. The throwing motion for baseball fielders depends very much on their position. For throws to first base, second basemen will generally use a "sidearm" motion in which their arm is close to parallel with the ground (less power, more control), while third basemen tend to be more overhand (as they need more power to get the ball there in time); shortstops use both techniques, generally depending on where they field the ball and the speed of the runner. Outfielders will always use an overhand motion, but the arc of the throw will depend a great deal on their own talent and their target (in particular, whehter they are trying to reach it in a single throw or via a "relay" or "cutoff" man interposed between them and the target). This latter tactic is universal in situations where the outfielder has a weak arm, or in which there are multiple possible targets (e.g., a base hit in which there are runners going to both home plate and second base, with it being up to the "cutoff man" to determine which is the more likely out (and up to the outfielder to throw the ball in such a way that the cutoff man can either intercept it or let it go through depending on his choice).

Seeing as we didn't do this the first time around:

Red Sox in 6
Dodgers in 6

Dodgers in 5
Red Sox in 7 (they like to stress me out)

SATAN DEVIL OLD SCRATCH Rays 4:1 Red Sux
Dodgers 4:3 Phils

Ursos, when I say higher and flatter I mean that the throwing arm seems to me to be raised a bit higher above the head and the ball is thrown flatter. It may have been the particular styles of the fielders I've seen. I'm not sounding convincing.

Prediction:
Dodgers v Red Sox WS.
Dodgers to win in 7.
Ramirez hits a HR in Boston in game 7 and jogs round the bases in an excessively smug and arrogant style, waving to the crowd and shows his arse on home plate on which he's already got a 'LA Dodgers World Series winner 2008' tattoo which drives the Bostonians delirious with rage.

On a related matter, what is with all the beards in Baseball?

Fightin' Phils in 3.

Believe Dat.

I would like to see the Phillies take the NLCS, but I just don't believe it will happen. They are the Chicago of the East.

Warning: image heavy post follows.

Lying awake in bed this morning after Grace woke up at 3:45am, I was thinking that a Dodgers-Red Sox series would not only be dramatic for the Manny angle, but the ballparks are so completely different and representative of the cities.

Fenway:





It's old. You just look at it and know it's historic. It seems to feel kind of cramped, and it looks kind of improvisational, like a bunch of different buildings built next to each other decades apart, but somehow it works.

Dodger Stadium:





Look at the difference of the diagrams. Where Fenway is a bit chaotic, Dodger Stadium is perfectly symmetrical. While it's not new, it certainly isn't old like Fenway is (built in 1962...not to sure on the construction dates of other ballparks, but if we divide stadiums into pre- and post-WW2, is Dodger Stadium the "oldest of the new" stadiums?)

Take a look at the difference of the views to the outfield--whereas at Fenway you can tell you're in a city, at Dodger Stadium you feel like you're in nature (if you can ignore the parking lots). The architecture--very mid-century modern. Note the zig-zag roof in the outfield. It's not exactly Richard Neutra (remember, he was the architect selected to build public housing in Chavez Ravine where Dodger Stadium is now), but like a lot of stuff in Los Angeles, a knockoff of something great that is just a little off but still has enough character to make you forgive its shortcomings.

Compare the surroundings:





Dodger Stadium is set in a giant parking lot, removed from the city (they didn't even built a stop on the Gold Line light rail at Dodger Stadium, though it goes right past). The park setting is mostly a fiction, and the residents of Chavez Ravine--





--were victims in the power play that promised them public housing that was fought down because of the Red Scare, then basically had their land given away to Walter O'Malley. But like a lot of things in Los Angeles, I still can't keep from falling in love with it.

On the beards, there has long been a tradition of NHL (ice hockey) players growing beards for as long as they "remain alive" in the playoffs (which can last six weeks); I think the tradition may be rubbing off in baseball.

Thanks for the explanation of higher and flatter; I would now agree with both. The throw is more of what we would call "overhand" (as opposed to "three quarters", "sidearm" or "submarine" (rare, and only pitchers)), and the arc is definitely closer to a straight line.

I am afraid to pick either series, as I still have a significant rooting interest.

I love Fenway Park. There is something undeniably magic about it. Perhaps because it's so old and storied. I honestly don't think the Red Sox would be the same team if they played in a new stadium. It wouldn't seem right at all.

And another thing...I grew up going to Astros games and didn't know anything but a domed stadium. Open air parks are so much better, even though you have to deal with weather. There's just something about being outside in the summer, drinking a beer and eating hotdogs, communing with other people who are there for the same reason: To have fun.

The same is true of the Cubs and Wrigley Field.

That's true.

I think the Cubs know that Wrigley is a big part of the draw. It's certainly not the team's record of achievement. Fenway hasn't always seemed so secure, has it? They were thinking of rebuilding it at one time.

Only place I've ever been "carded" as an adult, Fenway Park. I had no Massachussetts ID, of course, so I just took my hat off...

Geez, you go without a title for 100 years and you even get Newcastle supporters taking pot shots . . .

Wrigley hasn't been under serious threat since we gave in and put in lights in the late 80s (which I still haven't completely come to terms with). Fenway was threatened much more recently, but seems safe for now.

Both clubs have been extremely good at "maximizing revenue" from a limited number of seats, including by doing everything they can to create a sense of scarcity that allows for premium prices and creating all kinds of "premium packages". If this downturn is in fact as severe as it looks right now, it will be interesting to see whether that strategy is still viable.

The Cubs' situation is particularly volatile, because it is still rather unclear who is going to buy the team from Zell, and no one really knows what the market price of our television rights are (for as long as the club has been owned by the Tribune Company, they have been severely underpriced so as to provide a subsidy to the media company (which owns the television station holding the rights)).