Text 12728, 91 rader
Skriven 2008-08-26 11:10:38 av hap newsom (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHAEL LOO
Ärende: RE: play ball 822
=========================
Gidday Michael!
-> 
-> HN> Not much fun in mudville these days
-> HN> we're playing like a bunch of kids.
-> HN> Oakland is slapping us around like the
-> HN> perverbial red headed stepchild! 
-> 
-> Sox are almost waking up. Saw them beat the Jays in 11
-> last night (on cable TV) to take 2 of 3; of course, the
-> previous game, Lester got gotten to badly. Hard to see
-> what's going to happen in the AL East; but what I said
-> before holds, I'll be satisfied if the Sox just end up
-> ahead of the Steinbrenners.
-> 
A worthy ambition at any time for anyone!

->  -> He seems to have landed on his feet, though.
-> HN> Well, he's with the Yanks...and they have 
-> HN> the wherewithal to carry an anchor like 
-> HN> him for the rest of the season.
-> 
-> So why does a team need an anchor? I mean a boat anchor;
-> one might have called, say, Thurman Munson an anchor, but
-> of a different sort.
-> 
It's not that they NEED an anchor (anchor being a 
big weight that does nothing to aid forward momentum)
it's that they have (generally) the depth to disregard 
his pitiful batting average and "carry" him for his 
defensive skills. He can't seem to hit his IQ, but 
he's still one heck of a good (and BIG) first baseman.
The added benefit is that when he does connect 
with the ball, it really goes somewhere fast!

-> HN> BIG shakeups in the off season and next
-> HN> year NO one will be feeling comfortable
-> HN> if they are not "cutting the mustard"
-> 
-> I imagine. Your team is behaving badly enough so it
-> might be worthwhile to catch a game on TV just to
-> see the ineptitude. Sort of like watching class A ball,
-> only the competition is at major-league level.
->
That being said and agreed to, there are still flashes
of the brilliance that is indicated on paper. Last night
Adrian Beltre whacked a two run walkoff in the bottom
of the 9th and man was it a shot! 
 
-> HN> but that's what gives the trajectory.
-> 
-> Once the ball leaves the hand, the trajectory is set. So
-> why can't a machine be programmed to put the appropriate
-> spin on the ball? If one built a whole big batting cage
-> apparatus one could even put in air puffers to simulate
-> the effects of variable winds.
-> 
Once the ball leaves the hand the trajectory is 
most assuredly not set. The small variances in spin
imparted by each of the fingers continue to exert 
influence on the ball and thusly the trajectory 
often changes in mid flight. Two curveballs 
thrown at the same speed will still have different
spin and different trajectories. I think I understand
what you're meaning to say, that once the ball leaves
the Pitcher's hand, he has no more influence on it, and 
I'll agree to that, but the trajectory (take a knuckleball
for example) can vary hugely once it leaves said hurler's
fingertips.

->  -> a 19th-century music box apparatus connected to a
->  -> violin and bow that played the Mendelssohn actually
->  -> quite well.
-> HN> There's a far space between quite well and Itzhak Perlman
-> HN> I'd expect. And that's a lot of machine for one song.
-> 
-> Yep, but that was the 19th century, and all the logic was
-> stored mechanically. Anyhow, I figure the machine played it
-> about as well as Itzhak and could be made to play faster
-> than Itzhak or me or anyone else. Of course, I can play the
-> Mendelssohn about as well as Itzhak.
-> 
If all that were accurate and repeatable, why then
are there still folk such as yourself who have not 
been replaced by these machines? My guess is the
"intangibles" that the Perlman's and Loo's bring to 
the table give them an edge that the machine's can't
duplicate, emulate, or calculate.
chat with you soon!
hap 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)