Baseball Hall of Fame, 2014

[weezie]

Kinda woe is me after today's game...can sum-body give me the date for Pitchers and Catchers reporting?

[kmspeaks]

Kinda woe is me after today's game...can sum-body give me the date for Pitchers and Catchers reporting?

Me too The earliest report date is Feb 6th for the Diamondbacks, a mere 25 days away.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

[greybeard]

Your case is at least as good as OF's ability to spell Greg Maddux's surname.

I don't know what you mean, you never saw the game played them, never saw a single one of those guys play in their prime, Furillo had way better numbers than Ashburn in two of the three offensive stats that anybody ever kept, and batted .09 points less. Sorry, that is a case, except for an
English teacher, I suppose. How many guys from one team make the Hall. The Yanks might have had more from the 50s, not counting, but very, very few. The Dodgers were in the series the vast majority of years, '47-59. the Furillo years along with Robinson, Duke, Campy, Snider, Newcombe (8 homers in the Spr9ing of like 56), Hodges, all of whom batted in front of Furillo, and thus detracted from his numbers.

Dismissiveness is in the face of such comparisons, I hope that they are due to a personal bias. You remind me of Yankee and Giants fans when I was a kid insisting that Mays and Mantle were far superior than the Duke. Read the Duke's obit by David Anderson, where he opinions that the Duke was probably better than both of them. Make's horse races. When you're strident and wrong is it not a good combination. You young guys still probably think that LeBron is the best basketball player ever and the best physical specimen. Never watched the Wilt.

Furillo should have gotten real consideration. He didn't for the reasons stated. Had he gotten a fair shake, he had a decent shot at it. we was robbed, and so were you.

You refuse to recognize it, focusing instead on the issue of steroids instead of the far more scandalous issue, the callous disregard for injury in the sport of baseball. Greenies, pain killers by the boat load did not enhance performance significantly, and you know that how? The juiced ball, how much is that responsible for the HR derby, the dilution of talented pitchers, the absence of double headers, the greatly increased seasons permitting more rest and still more ABs, the private jets and first class meals and training, year round play and training, while 1950s guys sold cars, bio-mechanic machines and super training, high tech and very sophisticated, these are not performance enhancers paid for by teams, but steroids are? You grew up in the era of all those things and think you appreciate the way the game was played more than 50 years ago and yet make fun of my statistic based opinions, based upon formulations that nobody knew or cared about. Non illegal steroids, pain killers, anti inflammatory drugs, protein and legal strength enhancers, you ignore.

The integrity of your statistics, the games statistics, have long since lost their relevance; the real stories of the game are missed. so, it has been with Carl's. Done.

[YmoBeThere]

When you're strident and wrong is it not a good combination.

QFE!

[Mal]

The integrity of your statistics, the games statistics, have long since lost their relevance; the real stories of the game are missed. so, it has been with Carl's. Done.

Well, I think we've boiled it down now. We peppered you with quantitative arguments against your chosen player, you attempted to use quantitative indicators yourself and those have been shot down, so now we're back to the "stories." There is a qualitative part to the Hall of Fame, some weight given to being on the right team in the right era, to having a couple of big games on the biggest stages, to leaving a mark on the game or being the first to accomplish something that's later seen as banal. That's the "Fame" part of it, I guess. But it doesn't override the quantitative. If it did, everyone's favorite rightfielder from their childhood heroes would be enshrined. Barry Zito had the most dazzling curveball anyone had seen since Bert Blyleven's heyday, but he's not gonna get any Hall of Fame consideration. Just as many kids grew up trying to gun down tagging runners from rightfield imagining themselves to be Dave Parker or Dwight Evans as Furillo, and one of them was for two years the best hitter in the National League. And yet neither of them ever even got 30% of the votes. Carl Furillo is the '50's equivalent of Jesse Barfield, only on a better team. If you want to make the argument that the Hall of Fame should be there to pay tribute to everyone's greatest childhood memories and so should cast a vastly wider net, please do so, and then we can start talking about how Carl Furillo should have garnered consideration for said fictional Hall of Fame.

But as the Hall is currently constituted, it's seen fit to allow about two dozen rightfielders into its ranks. Of those, you're down to about a dozen who finished their playing careers after WWII ended, and the closest of those to Furillo in the JAWS rankings is 26th (compared to Furillo's 67th), is generally seen as one of the poster children for guys who shouldn't be in the Hall, needed the Veteran's Committee of his Yankee and Cards buddies to get in, and is still a better player than Furillo was. The next two postwar players up the list are Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn. Here's but a small selection of the other better modern rightfielders than Furillo who never got or won't get a sniff: Bobby Bonds, Felipe Alou, Daryl Strawberry, Tim Salmon, David Justice, Kirk Gibson, Magglio Ordonez, Tony Oliva, Rusty Staub, Rocky Colavito. That is nice company to be in, and no shame. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

[greybeard]

Well, I think we've boiled it down now. We peppered you with quantitative arguments against your chosen player, you attempted to use quantitative indicators yourself and those have been shot down, so now we're back to the "stories." There is a qualitative part to the Hall of Fame, some weight given to being on the right team in the right era, to having a couple of big games on the biggest stages, to leaving a mark on the game or being the first to accomplish something that's later seen as banal. That's the "Fame" part of it, I guess. But it doesn't override the quantitative. If it did, everyone's favorite rightfielder from their childhood heroes would be enshrined. Barry Zito had the most dazzling curveball anyone had seen since Bert Blyleven's heyday, but he's not gonna get any Hall of Fame consideration. Just as many kids grew up trying to gun down tagging runners from rightfield imagining themselves to be Dave Parker or Dwight Evans as Furillo, and one of them was for two years the best hitter in the National League. And yet neither of them ever even got 30% of the votes. Carl Furillo is the '50's equivalent of Jesse Barfield, only on a better team. If you want to make the argument that the Hall of Fame should be there to pay tribute to everyone's greatest childhood memories and so should cast a vastly wider net, please do so, and then we can start talking about how Carl Furillo should have garnered consideration for said fictional Hall of Fame.

But as the Hall is currently constituted, it's seen fit to allow about two dozen rightfielders into its ranks. Of those, you're down to about a dozen who finished their playing careers after WWII ended, and the closest of those to Furillo in the JAWS rankings is 26th (compared to Furillo's 67th), is generally seen as one of the poster children for guys who shouldn't be in the Hall, needed the Veteran's Committee of his Yankee and Cards buddies to get in, and is still a better player than Furillo was. The next two postwar players up the list are Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn. Here's but a small selection of the other better modern rightfielders than Furillo who never got or won't get a sniff: Bobby Bonds, Felipe Alou, Daryl Strawberry, Tim Salmon, David Justice, Kirk Gibson, Magglio Ordonez, Tony Oliva, Rusty Staub, Rocky Colavito. That is nice company to be in, and no shame. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I don't get what you think you shot down. I don't know JAWS, except for the movie, and I doubt very, very seriously that any of the newspaper guys gave any thought to the computations that go into them. Here is what I looked at:

Ashburn had significantly more hits, 675, walks, 684, and runs scored, 427, but Furillo was for practical purposes even with Ashburn with respect to what in my mind at least has always been regarded as the most significant batting statistic, that would be Batting Average, .308 to .300. Furillo had [B]significantly more RBIs, and [B]home runs, 132 fewer home runs.

These numbers are terribly skewed, and make my guy's performance sufficiently comparable to Ashburn's to support my argument, that we wus robbed.-- that Furillo had earned a serious look, which he never got, and might well have gotten in, had he been given one.

You cannot look at numbers without taking into account that Ashburn had 2714 more Plate Appearances than Furillo (9736 to 7022); that's a whole lot of Plate Appearances. How many more hits, runs, RBIs, homers, and walks do the numbers suggest that Furillo would have gotten had he played another 2714 games. For me it is enough to image. You can do the math if you want.

As for the hit and walk disparity, let's not forget that Ashburn's job was to get on base and that the meat of the Phillies lineup was behind him.
Furillo batted 6th, behind 4 Hall of Famers, 3 of whom formed a murderers' row of five, Robinson, Duke, Hodges (BA .273, RBIs 1274, HRs 370), and Campy. Behind him there was nobody except when Newcomb was playing, because that guy could hit. The case can be made that both Hodges and Newcombe would have been in the Hall had it not been for the other 4, not to mention Kofax and Drysdale who began their careers 3 and 2 years before the Dodgers left Brooklyn and were shoe ins for the Hall by the early 60s, See http://www.examiner.com/article/abse...s-hall-of-fame.

Furillo had one job to do and that was to hit, and one must presume that he could not be choosey. He was up there to swing; in addition to his 192 home runs, Furillo had 324 triple, 7 more than the other guy, that would be Richie. As for the other guys, we are talking 162 game seasons, no second jobs, no double headers, no all night train rides, no dilution of talent, much better training, and greenies, cortisone, and all kinds of pain killers, instead of coffee and booze. Oranges, not apples.

Now, aside from all this, there might be a case based upon the numbers alone, had it not been for the fact that Furillo got no consideration, because, in his era, baseball players were meat who did not dare to shake the halls of the game, or the game would be closed to them, as well as the Hall of it. There really can be no other explanation, except for the fact that there were all those other Dodgers who got into the Hall, but even that would not explain why Furillo never got a look. By the way, how many Hall of Famers did Richie play with?

Lastly, sure I am biased, which was the point, but your point that that places Furillo on an even footing with childhood heroes (he wasn't mine, the Duke, sorry Carl) from other teams misses the mark. The Dodgers dominated the National League in the 1947-1958, when they left Brooklyn, played the Yankees 6 times in the Series during that era, won in '55, and lost 2 or 3 others by a single run. They also lost to the Giants to the shot heard round the world. Furillo was eclipsed by this wave of greatness, and was stomped down because he dared to stand up. That makes his story different.

So, yes, I shared my story because we all have them about the baseball teams of our youth, and I hope I evoked some of yours. That's why I write. Stories are important, they add texture to the games that we play, and watch, to the lives we live. The fact remains, baseball should have done better by Carl Furillo; he earned a fair shot. So what else is new, $750,000,000 is scandalous, blackmail of those retirees who are going to die because of what football did to them, much more painfully and ruinously to their families unless the insulting number offered was accepted. Hey, who do you think is going to win this . . . . Just the way it goes.

[Blue in the Face]

what in my mind at least has always been regarded as the most significant batting statistic, that would be Batting Average...

Well, there's one of your problems.

[greybeard]

Well, there's one of your problems.

The first two are deserved. Wrong as rain insisting wrong is right.

[tommy]

You cannot look at numbers without taking into account that Ashburn had 2714 more Plate Appearances than Furillo (9736 to 7022); that's a whole lot of Plate Appearances. How many more hits, runs, RBIs, homers, and walks do the numbers suggest that Furillo would have gotten had he played another 2714 games. For me it is enough to image. You can do the math if you want.

It was 2714 more plate appearances, not games. Big difference. But still, in addition to his being a leadoff hitter, Ashburn was more durable than was Furillo, which is one main reason he got so many more plate appearances. Durability is something that counts in a player's favor in HOF consideration, I would think. Keeping in mind that it was a 154 game season, Ashburn's games played, beginning with his second year in the league, went like this: 154-151-154-154-156-153-140-154-156-152-153-151. His last two years, at ages 34 and 35, he only played 109 and 135 games. But still, from age 22 through 33, he barely missed a game, other then a handful in 1955. Amazing durability.

Furillo, who got to the bigs at age 24 (due to his having served in the military), had games played numbers like this: 117-124-108-142-153-158-134-132-150-140-149-119-122-50-8. Those last two years, he was 37 and 38 years old. So while Ashburn didn't play until as advanced an age as did Furillo, and I'm not saying Furillo was brittle or anything as he played in a solid number of games each year, he was nowhere near as durable during his prime years as was Ashburn.

As for the hit and walk disparity, let's not forget that Ashburn's job was to get on base and that the meat of the Phillies lineup was behind him.
Furillo batted 6th, behind 4 Hall of Famers, 3 of whom formed a murderers' row of five, Robinson, Duke, Hodges (BA .273, RBIs 1274, HRs 370), and Campy. Behind him there was nobody except when Newcomb was playing, because that guy could hit.

I think this cuts against your argument. Furillo, who usually batted seventh or sixth in the lineup, always had guys on base to drive in. Ducks were always on the pond. Lots of RBI opportunities. And as far as guys behind him, if I'm not mistaken, third baseman Billy Cox was usually the eighth hitter in the lineup. While not a powerhouse by any means, he was a .260-ish hitter, very respectable at the plate, especially for an eighth place hitter. Not an easy or automatic out by any means.

Ashburn hit atop a weak lineup for most of his career. With the exception of Del Ennis, the Phillies of those years didn't have much in the way of hitting. In 1949, Ennis, at .302, was the only guy to hit .300. In 1950, it was just Ashburn and Ennis. In 1951, it was just Ashburn, at .344. In 1952, none. In 1953, none but Ashburn, who hit .330. In 1954 it was just Ashburn, at .313. And so on. So the idea that it was easier for Richie Ashburn for some reason, because he had a parade of great hitters behind him, is factually inaccurate. Ashburn was the best hitter in the lineup, and despite the opponent probably focussing on him much of the time, he still put up solid, solid numbers.

As for the other guys, we are talking 162 game seasons, no second jobs, no double headers, no all night train rides, no dilution of talent, much better training, and greenies, cortisone, and all kinds of pain killers, instead of coffee and booze. Oranges, not apples.

Also, no prying media, no internet, no 24 hour news cycle digging up every minor transgression the old timers committed, because their teammates, management, the police, and most importantly the media, would cover for them.

And most importantly, almost no players from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or any of the other countries that now have players -- lots of players -- on major league rosters, and major league all-star teams. You can't talk "dilution of talent" without recognizing the other side of the coin.

[greybeard]

It was 2714 more plate appearances, not games. Big difference. But still, in addition to his being a leadoff hitter, Ashburn was more durable than was Furillo, which is one main reason he got so many more plate appearances. Durability is something that counts in a player's favor in HOF consideration, I would think. Keeping in mind that it was a 154 game season, Ashburn's games played, beginning with his second year in the league, went like this: 154-151-154-154-156-153-140-154-156-152-153-151. His last two years, at ages 34 and 35, he only played 109 and 135 games. But still, from age 22 through 33, he barely missed a game, other then a handful in 1955. Amazing durability.

Furillo, who got to the bigs at age 24 (due to his having served in the military), had games played numbers like this: 117-124-108-142-153-158-134-132-150-140-149-119-122-50-8. Those last two years, he was 37 and 38 years old. So while Ashburn didn't play until as advanced an age as did Furillo, and I'm not saying Furillo was brittle or anything as he played in a solid number of games each year, he was nowhere near as durable during his prime years as was Ashburn.



I think this cuts against your argument. Furillo, who usually batted seventh or sixth in the lineup, always had guys on base to drive in. Ducks were always on the pond. Lots of RBI opportunities. And as far as guys behind him, if I'm not mistaken, third baseman Billy Cox was usually the eighth hitter in the lineup. While not a powerhouse by any means, he was a .260-ish hitter, very respectable at the plate, especially for an eighth place hitter. Not an easy or automatic out by any means.

Ashburn hit atop a weak lineup for most of his career. With the exception of Del Ennis, the Phillies of those years didn't have much in the way of hitting. In 1949, Ennis, at .302, was the only guy to hit .300. In 1950, it was just Ashburn and Ennis. In 1951, it was just Ashburn, at .344. In 1952, none. In 1953, none but Ashburn, who hit .330. In 1954 it was just Ashburn, at .313. And so on. So the idea that it was easier for Richie Ashburn for some reason, because he had a parade of great hitters behind him, is factually inaccurate. Ashburn was the best hitter in the lineup, and despite the opponent probably focussing on him much of the time, he still put up solid, solid numbers.



Also, no prying media, no internet, no 24 hour news cycle digging up every minor transgression the old timers committed, because their teammates, management, the police, and most importantly the media, would cover for them.

And most importantly, almost no players from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or any of the other countries that now have players -- lots of players -- on major league rosters, and major league all-star teams. You can't talk "dilution of talent" without recognizing the other side of the coin.

Tom, I thought I had said that I your statistical analysis alone might had refuted my argument: not that Furillo was Asburn's equal, but that he deserved a shot for the additional arguments I presented. We might have overlapped, or I might have been too obtuse, in conceding that you had proved your point and that I had been wrong as rain for continuing to press mine. .

You did a mastferful job with the stats several times, and that, while I some points to make, they did not overcome what you had had to say. I got that Ashburn did some exceptional things to make a non-slugger, and Furillo was not the highest end on that, aka guys who make the Hall, he did not have the exceptional things that you had pointed out that Richie had, on base percentage, walks, hits, legs (tealing).

Your last piece met me in my own terms, was wonderfully presented substantively and tonally and I liked being corrected in that fashion. While I can quibble around the edges of what that last piece said, perhaps as to the durability issue, that is that Carl could be rested because at least during my years the Dodgers were loaded, (Gilliam and Zimmerman and Amoros come to mind} which led Alston, a Hall coach, to give them time based upon who the Dodgers were playing and where things stood in pennant races, bottom line there is no quibbling, you be an iron horse for as many years as Asburn, it puts you in another league, period, a point you also made quite smoothly and effectively.

Really terrific job throughout. Who knows, maybe my pressing you beyond good sense, gave you the stage you deserve to show your stuff. I hope it's all good, not that I wasn't trying (the not good, "bad" is so judgmental, kind).

[greybeard]

The first part of my last post is better stated: My point throughout was not that Furillo was Ashburn's equal, but that a comparison showed that he deserved a shot but only because of what I saw as strong reason to think he was denied it, was blacklisted, because he had challenged Baseball and also because 4 Dodgers he had played with throughout the 50s had gotten in, two others probably should have also, and two others with whom he had overlapped were shoe-ins before Furillo became eligible. In the end, we might have overlapped, but I conceded that I deserved the rather stern criticism for not seeing that that argument had been refuted by you and others, that I had been wrong as rain.

[tommy]

Tom, I thought I had said that I your statistical analysis alone might had refuted my argument: not that Furillo was Asburn's equal, but that he deserved a shot for the additional arguments I presented. We might have overlapped, or I might have been too obtuse, in conceding that you had proved your point and that I had been wrong as rain for continuing to press mine. .

You did a mastferful job with the stats several times, and that, while I some points to make, they did not overcome what you had had to say. I got that Ashburn did some exceptional things to make a non-slugger, and Furillo was not the highest end on that, aka guys who make the Hall, he did not have the exceptional things that you had pointed out that Richie had, on base percentage, walks, hits, legs (tealing).

Your last piece met me in my own terms, was wonderfully presented substantively and tonally and I liked being corrected in that fashion. While I can quibble around the edges of what that last piece said, perhaps as to the durability issue, that is that Carl could be rested because at least during my years the Dodgers were loaded, (Gilliam and Zimmerman and Amoros come to mind} which led Alston, a Hall coach, to give them time based upon who the Dodgers were playing and where things stood in pennant races, bottom line there is no quibbling, you be an iron horse for as many years as Asburn, it puts you in another league, period, a point you also made quite smoothly and effectively.

Really terrific job throughout. Who knows, maybe my pressing you beyond good sense, gave you the stage you deserve to show your stuff. I hope it's all good, not that I wasn't trying (the not good, "bad" is so judgmental, kind).

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

[rasputin]

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

Greybeard, and I say this with all respect, you might also re-think your view about the value of batting average. There are lots of better metrics out there, starting with OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging). If you wanna get fancier, there are ways to adjust for the era and for the ballpark that the player is in.

[greybeard]

Greybeard, and I say this with all respect, you might also re-think your view about the value of batting average. There are lots of better metrics out there, starting with OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging). If you wanna get fancier, there are ways to adjust for the era and for the ballpark that the player is in.

Furillo, .813; Ashburn, .778. OPS? Furillo, 112, Asburn, 111. OPS plus?

My friend Kauf, we've been tight since College and the guy LOVES baseball, I told him on Wednesday about the debate I had going here about Furillo and the Hall. "Again with Furillo? An outfielder needs to be a slugger to get into the Hall: Furillo wasn't."

That is why I conceded that Furillo didn't have a shot, because of my man Kauf, even though he is a diehard Yankee fan and to this day insists that the Mick was better than the Duke, even though Dave Anderson himself said that that just wasn't the case.

As for throwing in the bag entirely, in for a dime, in for a dollar. Ashburn had some special things that Furillo didn't, played a very high number of games each season, had a very high OBP, and had speed reflected in his stolen bases. So, there was no point in saying that Ashburn didn't belong, he always caught my eye when I watched the game until I moved from Brooklyn, the year the Dodgers did, and he got in, deservingly so as far as I could see, even though I thought that BA was by far the most important stat in the game when I was a kid, except, of course, for home runs, Willie, Mickey, da Duke.

You and Tommy, you would have loved to be a kid in the City in those days--I can assure you that your perspective on which of the three was best would have had nothing whatever to do with stats.

Stats are playing an ever increasing role in how basketball teams are deployed, to an extent and ways that I do not appreciate. However, vastly more about the game cannot be broken down into any function or arithmetic formulation. It is that zone that has captured my from the day I first picked one up, it was a pink one about the size of a tennis ball, they were called Spaldeens. You punched it, in my case at least half dozen ways, all of them very effective. What can I say, other than that I mean no harm.

[greybeard]

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

[greybeard]

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

Please disregard, except for the well taken. Thoughtful too.

[throatybeard]

Wait, this is still going on?

I'm going to Cooperstown for Maddux and Glavine this July. I'll holler if I meet anyone named Furillo.

[greybeard]

Wait, this is still going on?

I'm going to Cooperstown for Maddux and Glavine this July. I'll holler if I meet anyone named Furillo.

If his name is Carl and he played for the Dodgers, we'll remember you well and you will say hi to St. Peter for us. I got my signed pictures of him, Hodges and of the course the Duke framed in Dodger blue on desk in my home office. Entire '55 team should be enshrined.

[77devil]

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

bunny-pancake-1.jpg

[pfrduke]

Man, it had been too long since someone pulled out a pancake bunny around here. Well done.