[PHSForever]

Who said he wouldn't?

Yeah, really? Why would anyone get defensive about anything in this thread. Nobody cut anybody or had anything negative to say about anybody. Charlie Hustle is the one that told me that he hit 91 and was right there beside the gun when it happened. I have no doubt about that at all as I have stated before that I have gunned him at 91 several times. There is certainly nothing shabby about that.


BUT, when you have someone get on here and state a number like 96, that's when the absurdity of it comes into play. People who have never seen 96 have no clue as to what the difference in 91 and 96 actually is. They may be only 5 digits apart but 96 is an absolute light year away from 91. It's as much difference as what 80 and 90 is. There is a very distinct visible difference. It goes along perfectly with the whole point that Horst Muhlmann was making when he made the comment about NCC needing to call Aroldis Chapman to pitch batting practice based on some of the comments posted on this board. Someone just proved his point.

Agreed. When I played in college, there was a TREMENDOUS difference between even 85 and 90. Until people have actually faced these kinds of speeds, they really don't know. 75 and 70 arent's that different, nor are 80 and 75...BUT, beyond that, even incremental changes of a couple mph here and there are dramatic. For me, it was always harder hitting an 82 mph slider than it was an 85 mph fastball, usually because of the movement alone. But swinging at a 90 mph fastball versus an 87 mph fastball, both being equal in movement was still light years in difference. That's why so called "junk" pitchers usually do so well at the high school and college level, especially if their cutters/sliders, etc are close in mph to their fastballs and they have command of their pitches, and that sometimes transalates to the pro level as well.

Speaking of pitchers I've watched/seen up close, etc., that is a reason I was not so quick to put Rick down for his assessment of Willie Blair as the best in the past 30 years out of this area. Willie had a live fastball that really moved well, and had good command of his off speed pitches. Matt Coleman, on the other hand, had a very nice fastball, but it was flat with not a lot of movement. He did well in high school, well in college, but just could not (I guess) get over that hump of getting some movement and difference in his pitches that would keep the pro level players from teeing off on him. He did very well at Bristol, not really sure why he didn't hold out longer, maybe the coaches just told him he wasn't going any further up, who knows? But that is the fun of baseball, watching and guessing and debating!