Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Thu Mar 9 12:05:13 2006

Hi All:

If we consider the empirical, geometrical, and, to a certain extent physical ramifications of pulling all pitches, one can easily debate critics that claim its absurdity. To paraphrase Jack, hypothetical model that challenges conventional baseball wisdom is likely to arouse one's ire. The folly here is, though, the same individual(s) who make this claim often fall into the camp they so desparately criticize.

Let's take my model from just the untrained eyes of the observer. Many members of the 500 home run club had a propensity to pulling every pitch: Mickey Mantle, Harmon Killebrew, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmiero, and others.

The observer must then ask this question: why is pulling every pitch beneficial. The answer simply is that the natural field is has one of the shortest proximal dimensions on in the ballpark.

This will segway into another question: if the opposite field is the same distance than the natural field, then why not hit to that area. The answer is that balls are hit with more force when pulled then pushed the other way. I believe thar even Adair and Jack support this notion.

Here is the BHL challenge: individuals should chart the top power hitters, and estimate what percent is hit to the opposite field. Overall, how many of these hitters pull all pitches? Who out there is willing to accept?

Sincerely,
BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

P.S. I welcome all criticism, and will give individuals a week to comment before I respond. Please remember, in order to learn from this discussion, I would appreciate that all feedback, negative especially, be backed with reasons why individuals feel that way. Let the debates begin!