Rowand44 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) I can't believe someone is actually saying that Rowand44 is negative. You don't think I'm negative fathom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 That's pretty fast. I love seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawa_sox Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 27 @ 2005 -> 11:17 PM) I can't believe someone is actually saying that Rowand44 is negative. QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 01:41 AM) You don't think I'm negative fathom? Let's get this right. fathom is a worry wart (like the rest of us he wants the Sox to win, badly, and it is just his way of handling the pressure.) Rowand44 is droll. Edited August 28, 2005 by ottawa_sox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottawa_sox Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 And as far as the 102 goes - I like big numbers too. But I also worry about elbow screws , ala Cal Eldred. Once you have put enough force on a joint to cause a stress fracture, how long before it happens again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 11:00 PM) Most scientists will tell you that 102 mph is physically impossible. Dalkowski was rumored to throw 110 or 105, and he's by far the most powerful arm ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Wasn't there a guy on the Astros in the 80's who was clocked at 1030-104 a few times. J.R. Reid? was that his name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Idonno but they showed the 102 mph on baseball tonight b4 they showed the throw out of Ichiro at home I was switching channels between that and the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CYGarland Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 09:46 PM) Just be happy it stayed in the park. Sexson is a low ball hitter, and Jenks put that ball right where he likes it. Cotts and his high fastball would have probably been a better match-up...but it's too late for that. I agree. I didn't like that matchup from the get go. Thank God he didn't get more air under it. .................Also, i do believe that gun was accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 02:31 AM) Wasn't there a guy on the Astros in the 80's who was clocked at 1030-104 a few times. J.R. Reid? was that his name? J.R. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spod=Ratings Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 01:31 AM) Wasn't there a guy on the Astros in the 80's who was clocked at 1030-104 a few times. J.R. Reid? was that his name? WOW, Thats pretty fast Edited August 28, 2005 by Spod=Ratings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Spod=Ratings @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:30 AM) WOW, Thats pretty fast he's working the metric system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 I don't believe anyone's gun number anymore. EVERYONE is throwing at least 93-95 on those guns, and I refuse to believe that everyone throws that hard. I haven't paid attention, but I bet those guns have Maddux in the low 90's. That said, Jenks has been pretty damn good lately. His fastball has some life to it, and that curve of his is nasty. NICE pickup by KW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 11:00 PM) Most scientists will tell you that 102 mph is physically impossible. so you mean to tell me its scientifically impossible for a ball to go 102??? please explain to me the science behind that. jenks hit 103 in puetro rico, and even his former agent who dislikes jenks now said he wouldnt deny the fact taht he actually did hit 103 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam G Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 11:00 PM) Most scientists will tell you that 102 mph is physically impossible. Did you take a survey or something? And color me impressed, I had no idea we had so many certified radar gun experts here on Soxtalk. You'd think this was a physics forum or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 From the hitters perspective it's a LOT faster when combined with an off-speed pitch. I read somewhere that when a pitcher throws an 87 mph pitch followed by a 95 mph it appears to the hitter like a 15 mph jump. So when Jenks throws a 92 mph followed by a 102 mph skill & talent won't make contact. You have to be lucky to hit that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxLova6 Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 11:00 PM) Most scientists will tell you that 102 mph is physically impossible. even if most scientists says that's physically impossible, jenks still hit it according to the gun and that's all the proof you need. he's a big guy. i believe he's able to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Spod=Ratings @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:30 AM) WOW, Thats pretty fast , thx man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 03:24 AM) J.R. Richard That's him. I remember his career didn't last very long, but he had serious heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 I don't know what kind of science can tell you that a guy can't hit 100+ on the gun. I remember a group of scientists saying that a curve ball doesn't really curve too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) I don't know what kind of science can tell you that a guy can't hit 100+ on the gun. I remember a group of scientists saying that a curve ball doesn't really curve too. He was right around one hundred miles per hour... if he never had that stroke he could have had himself a mighty fine career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 12:04 PM) He was right around one hundred miles per hour... if he never had that stroke he could have had himself a mighty fine career. Yeah, but there were stories, just like the ones about Jenks that said he'd been clocked a few MPH higher. You're right, he would've gone on and been the s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Osuna Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 so you mean to tell me its scientifically impossible for a ball to go 102??? please explain to me the science behind that. jenks hit 103 in puetro rico, and even his former agent who dislikes jenks now said he wouldnt deny the fact taht he actually did hit 103 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I read an article on pitching mechanics in some magazine a while back, and it essentially said that most scientists believe that the human body is not capable of throwing a baseball higher than 101.9 MPH. Its simply the way our muscles are built. Of course, you'd think that people with perhaps more highly built muscles would be able to overcome that, but the article was pretty confident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(Antonio Osuna @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 12:40 PM) I read an article on pitching mechanics in some magazine a while back, and it essentially said that most scientists believe that the human body is not capable of throwing a baseball higher than 101.9 MPH. Its simply the way our muscles are built. Of course, you'd think that people with perhaps more highly built muscles would be able to overcome that, but the article was pretty confident. I'd have to read that for myself. Not a crack at you, but I don't see how anyone can say it's impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 28, 2005 -> 12:51 PM) I'd have to read that for myself. Not a crack at you, but I don't see how anyone can say it's impossible. I linked the article a while ago, before we had around the horn, so it would be in the sports bar. It was an article on Slate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 I've also heard that according to scientists, no one should be able to hit a baseball over 500 ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.