Comments on: Mo wins 2009 Pro Athlete of the Year Award

By: Tank the Frank

Tank the Frank — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:04:03 +0000

The funny thing is that only two conclusions could be drawn from my post.

1. I am a genius
2. I’ve only watched a couple episodes of “The Universe”

You went with option two…and you were exactly right.

…And it pisses me off.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:10:41 +0000

are you drunk? im drunk

By: pete

pete — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:38:53 +0000

the actual physical truth is even more mind-boggling: mo’s cutter spins with such force that it eventually builds up so much velocity in the air particles that are moving due to the seams spinning that the ball moves in the direction of increased fluidic velocity (the velocity actually increases on two sides of the ball, but as one is upwards and the other downwards, it moves downwards). The reason this occurs is because the pressure of a moving fluid is less than static fluid, which is due in part (i think, or assume anyway) to two main factors: one is that particles moving in a (more or less) uniform direction would have less random movement than static fluid, and random movement creates pressure, and the other argument would be that movement is kinetic energy, while pressure is potential, so kinetic energy would be the alleviation of some potential energy, in this case pressure. I’m not sure about that though, because I think pressure is caused by kinetic energy to begin with. In any case though, there is less pressure in the moving air than in the static air, so the ball moves in the direction of the moving air.

This, of course, is true of all breaking balls, and also is the reason why roofs fly off houses during hurricanes (weird to think about it, but they are actually pushed off from the inside, not pulled off from the outside). There are actually two reasons why mo’s cutter is so spectacular:

a) the sharpness of his cutter is a result of its moving so fast that it physically cannot break until it is within only a few feet of the plate. This means that despite applying the extraordinary amount of lateral energy that it takes to make a baseball “break” in less than 60 feet of air time, Mo is still able to apply 90-94 mph worth of strictly forward kinetic energy. In other words, he gets that amount of velocity even though a great deal of the work done by his fingers (which for most pitchers contributes wholly to their velocities, which are generally in the Mo-range) is lateral, and does not contribute to velocity. In other words, it’s like a regular fastball, speed-wise, except it moves a lot. (Phil’s cutter, for example, is generally around 88 mph. His FB is 95. AKA, Mo throws HARD).

b) despite throwing the ball very hard AND generating a lot of movement on the pitch, Mo has SPECTACULAR command, and truly gets how to pitch past the point of adaptability. Much of Mo’s success is predicated on the fact that people who have spent their whole lives making their muscles react to pitches cannot suddenly change their approach for one hitter. Not because they don’t want to, but because there is not enough time for your brain to tell your hands to swing somewhere other than where your hand-eye has told you where to swing. The other part of it, though, is that he CONSTANTLY throws pitches that simply cannot be hit well. A hitter must be incredibly comfortable and very much in his own groove to be able to hit 90+ MPH fastballs, so altering their approach for one at-bat, in-game, would wildly decrease their likelihood of success. Thus lefties can’t simply swing at the lower outside corner when the ball appears to be coming 3-4 inches outside, and righties can’t swing at a pitch that looks like it’s going to be 3-4 inches inside. Mind does not, in .5 seconds, triumph over instinctual hand-eye coordination.

By: JMK THE OVERSHARE's Milton Bradley Fat Park Factor

JMK THE OVERSHARE's Milton Bradley Fat Park Factor — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:41:38 +0000

I found that a shallow, inaccurate description of matter.

Signed,

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Kidding. Nice work, Frank.

By: MJ

MJ — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:37:54 +0000

And this is exactly why I love this Yankee blog.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Archimedes Torquemada

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Archimedes Torquemada — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:01:12 +0000

1997 was a crazy-sick year for him too:
29 starts, 213 IP, 2.28 ERA (196+), 1.052 WHIP, 291 K, 5 complete games, 2 shutouts, 20-4 record.

Unfortunately for him, Roger Clemens was a freaking buzzsaw for the Blue Jays.

34 starts, 264 IP (ZOMG!!) 2.05 ERA (221+), 1.030 WHIP, 292 K, 9 complete games, 3 shutouts, 21-7 record.

That’s a “tough luck” loss.

By: Angelo

Angelo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:58:55 +0000

Bravo Frank

By: Steve H

Steve H — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:56:14 +0000

Ben Sheets should have been #2 in 2004.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Archimedes Torquemada

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Archimedes Torquemada — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:53:28 +0000

Also an excellent choice.

Johnson had a lower WHIP, though, and many more K’s. He also pitched in a tougher division than Buerhle and Millwood in the AL Central.

Frankly, though, any ordering of Millwood, Buerhle, Johnson, and Cliff Lee for spots 2-5 would have been fine with me.

Mariano’s #6 and Colon is #7. At best.

By: steve (different one)

steve (different one) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:48:57 +0000

IETC