Pitch it where they ain't - Hit 'em where they ain't | Good advice!!

Wee Willy Keeler, one of the best hitters at the turn of the century and a Hall of Famer once said his advice to hitter's was "Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't".  Now, Perry Husband perhaps borrows from that in this article to explain how Jennie Finch vexes major league hitters by "Pitching it where they ain't". 

from SBNation.com

The Essence of Velocity: The pitching theory that could revolutionize baseball, if only the sport would embrace it

				The Essence of Velocity: The pitching theory that could ... The pitching theory that could revolutionize baseball, if only the sport would embrace it.
				View on www.sbnation.com	Preview by Yahoo

PITCH IT WHERE THEY AIN’T

Perry Husband once asked Brent Strom to name his ideal closer. Without hesitation, Strom said, "Jennie Finch, the softball pitcher."

Strom is on to something. There’s a reason that big league hitters won’t step into the box against a softball hurler: Their underhand delivery is so foreign to them as to appear unhittable.

Finch actually did face big leaguers, at the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game — where she struck out Albert Pujols, Brian Giles and Mike Piazza. Barry Bonds looked on in amusement, but when he faced her several months later, he was able to muster nothing more than a softly tapped foul.

"Her ball comes in on a different path," said Strom. "It’s why [former Mets starter] Sid Fernandez had success. Everybody wants a 6'5 guy, but hitters have been conditioned for ages for a ball to be in a certain spot, from a downward plane. Fernandez sat really deep on his back leg and had a low release point. Hitters couldn’t adjust."

They would, of course, if they faced Fernandez … or Finch … every day. It’s not like collegiate softball players are better hitters than their big league counterparts.

It does, however, illustrate the power of putting a pitch where the hitter does not expect it to be.

'via Blog this'

If pitchers can incorporate the kind of deceptiveness that Finch possesses, they are well on their way to demolishing the front half of Keeler's advice, "Keep your eye clear..." You can't hit what you can't see, so therefore you can't hit well, that which you can't see well. Good article and Perry Husband throws out some good wisdom on his website "Hitting is a Guess" ( http://www.hittingisaguess.com/index.html ). Perry's stuff is useful for both hitters and pitchers.

P.S. - I did not not know this:

Keeler had the ability to bunt practically any ball sent his way. He was the impetus for the rule change that made a third-strike foul bunt into a strike out. 

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET

The debate surfaces periodically and revolves around the "is today's player better than players from other eras", whether it be the 70's and 80's -- the WWI era -- or the Ruth / Cobb era.

For certain, I believe the quality of the athlete that baseball is recruiting is better now than ever before. Whether that always translates into better players centers around my belief that coaching, especially at the major league level -- but in the minors as well -- has not kept up.

Coaching may be as good or better than ever at the collegiate and HS level. The youth level, IMO still leaves something to be desired. Generally speaking the level of coaching is improving there, if only sporadically.

Putting aside for a moment the segue arguments
- "Do bigger players equal better players?"
and the pejorative fallback argument
- "How did they get bigger and stronger?"

clearly the trend toward bigger, stronger, faster equaling "more productive" players has pretty much been settled. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on many variables that can not be extracted or accounted for through statistical analysis or the dreaded "eyeball" test.

Some fans will prefer 1-0, 2-0 pitching duels and some will continue to prefer the "chicks dig the long ball" era. The pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to another and back again.

The following article touches on many of the relevant areas of discussion.

DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET:

"Current baseball scouts generally focus their attention on larger prospects, particularly pitchers

BABE RUTH STILL STANDS AS ONE of the legendary giants of baseball, but if he were alive today, he would stand taller than only 48 percent of the players who were on major-league 40-man rosters at the start of spring training.

The Bambino was listed at 6-2 and 195 pounds before his weight became a major problem during the second half of his career. He is remembered as a much larger man because most newsreel footage of him was taken during his last few seasons-- and because he was always much bigger than the average player of his time.

But if the young, strapping Ruth were magically transported into the 21st century, he would not stand out in the team picture of any major-league club. His wonderful baseball skills aside, he would be--in terms of vital statistics--a very average guy."

The 1927 "Murderers' Row" New York Yankees were one of the most dominating, intimidating teams in history, yet the average height and weight of a member of that storied group, even with such big bruisers as Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel at the heart of the lineup, was just 5-11 and 176 pounds.

The 1975 world champion Cincinnati Reds--immortalized as "The Big Red Machine"--illustrated what a difference a half-century can make. The players on that Reds club averaged 6-1 and 188 pounds.

The 2001 three-time defending world champion Yankees are not really known as one of the most physically imposing teams on the planet, but they weigh in with an average height and weight of 6-2 and 204 pounds.

Changes.....through the years. Sometimes, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees and remember how things used to be in the 'good old days'. Then you see an old ESPN classic and you realize that "Hey, Jennie Finch actually looks more athletic than some major leaguers from the 70's appeared.

BUD HARRELSON - 1969 METS 5'11", 165 POUNDS (MAYBE)

JENNIE FINCH - USA!!! USA!!! - 6'1", 170 POUNDS

Advantage Finch!!!!

My money is on Finch even if it goes this far...

Specialization and AAU-ization...always a factor. Participation in other sports, in conjunction with or to the exclusion of other sports has changed the landscape somewhat.

If it were totally a matter of evolution, the process presumably would take place at a much slower rate. It appears, in this case, that the Darwinian notion of natural selection has been replaced with just plain selection. Baseball players are taller because scouts are out looking for taller baseball players.

"In our industry, as far as evaluating talent, you're driven to larger bodies," said Cardinals director of baseball operations John Mozeliak. "When you go to the Dominican Republic, for instance, you get all these kids at the tryouts. The first thing you look at is how a guy looks in the uniform. You're very unlikely to give any money to a guy who's 5-9 and 170 pounds."

This isn't necessarily a new concept, but several other factors may contribution to the greater availability of tall athletes during the past decade or so--most notably a vast increase in the number and diversity of youth sports programs.

The average 1960s kid played Little League and maybe Pop Warner football. The 1980s kid also had soccer, basketball and other team and individual sports to keep them active year-round.

"I think one thing that's happening is that participation is at its highest level as far as youth sports, so the pool of talent to choose from has grown," said Cardinals trainer Barry Weinstein. "And you're developing a more well-rounded athlete, so a kid doesn't have to like basketball just because he's 6-9."

And the generational shift from sandlot sports to highly organized youth programs probably has the added effect of weeding out kids with less natural athletic ability much earlier--creating a better youth talent pool at the expense of some of the young people they were supposed to benefit.

You can see from the following table that HR champs have been getting bigger over the course of the last few decades. The typical HR slugger from the good old days would be average sized today.

BIG LEAGUE SLUGGERS ARE GETTING BIGGER--Despite the fact that league home run champions have had little change in size over the last 80 years, the most dramatic change has been the number of power hitters. From 1921 through 1940, hitting 40 or more homers in a season was accomplished 32 times by 12 different players. From 1941 through 1960, it was accomplished 44 times by 17 different sluggers. From 1961 through 1980, the number rose to 54 times that a player hit 40 homers in a season, reached by 30 different players. And during the last 20 years (1981-2000), the number of 40-homer hitters jumped to 98 times accomplished by 49 different players. Below is a chart of the average size of league home run champions dating back to 1921.

Total Avg. Avg. Avg.
ERA HR Champs Height Weight HR Output

1991-2000 15 6-3 218 48
1981-1990 20 6-3 208 40
1971-1980 13 6-2 201 40
1961-1970 11 6-1 202 46
1951-1960 15 6-1 194 42
1941-1950 13 6-0 195 36
1931-1940 11 6-0 194 40
1921-1930 10 6-0 187 41

Largest HR Smallest HR
ERA Champion Champion

1991-2000 Mark McGwire (6-5, 250) Howard Johnson (5-11, 178)
1981-1990 Jose Canseco (6-4, 240) Kevin Mitchell (5-11, 210)
1971-1980 Dave Kingman (6-6, 210) Dick Allen (5-11, 190)
1961-1970 Frank Howard (6-7, 255) Willie Mays (5-11, 180)
1951-1960 Hank Sauer (6-4, 200) Al Rosen (5-10, 180)
1941-1950 Hank Greenberg (6-3-210) Mel Ott (5-9, 170)
1931-1940 Hank Greenberg (6-3, 210) Ripper Collins (5-9, 165)
1921-1930 Babe Ruth (6-2, 215) Hack Wilson (5-6, 190)

COPYRIGHT 2001 Century Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group

From the table in this article, the player of today has to compete against more potential players today than ever before, even with expansion. Although they do accommodate for the exclusion of black and Hispanic players in the past, the pre-war major leaguer did not see the diversity of talent culled from around the globe that today's player competes against.



Another factor, to be considered but not readily apparent from the table above is the effect of the various wars on the availability of 18 - 30 year old males, a crucial variable at times.

Think of how much that talent pool was diluted during the war years -- a time during which "One-armed" Pete Gray played.

Pete Gray, Universal Newsreels, 1945.ogv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_Gray,_Universal_Newsreels,_1945.ogv

Other current stars gave up years of their career to the war effort, as illustrated in the following two articles.

Baseball in Wartime
http://www.baseballinwartime.com/

Baseball in Wartime is dedicated to preserving the memories of all baseball players (major league, negro league, minor league, semi-pro, college, amateur and high school), who served with the military between 1940 and 1946.

World War II was a trying time for the United States and equally so for baseball. More than 4,500 professional players swapped flannels for military uniforms to serve their nation and future Hall of Famers like Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams lost vital playing time in the prime of their careers. What is far less commonly known is that at least 130 minor league players lost their lives while serving their country.

Major League Baseball's Popularity During WWII by Joey Corso
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/161265-major-league-baseballs-popularity-during-wwii

Before WWII began, Major League Baseball enjoyed record popularity. Ted Williams batted a record-setting .406, Joe DiMaggio, set a record with hits in 56 consecutive games, 41-year-old Lefty Grove won his 300th career win, and the New York Yankees collected an unprecedented ninth World Series championship.(Baseball in Wartime)

Following Pearl Harbor, overwhelming patriotism spread throughout the nation, causing many young men to enlist including future Hall of Fame players Hank Greenburg and Bob Feller who gave up the prime their careers to be a part of the war effort.

Greenburg summed up what all players at the time were feeling, telling the Sporting News that “If there's any last message to be given to the public, let it be that I'm going to be a good soldier.”

Although a small minority of Americans expressed displeasure towards apparently fit men participating in sports and shirking military duties, Private John E Stevenson, expressed the more widely held view that, "baseball is part of the American way of life. Remove it and you remove something from the lives of American citizens, soldiers and sailors."

Along with future Hall of Famers, many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.

Using David Finoli’s highly embraced statistical formula, as seen in For the Good of the Country: World War II Baseball in the Major and Minor Leagues, a list of the top 64 ball players during the war seasons (1942-1945) was developed, headed by a Roy Sanders.

Although a fine player, it was clear a somewhat obscure player today, benefited playing against lesser competition. This can be seen by comparing his statistics during and after the war.

The list contains several other fine players, but does not include a future Hall of Fame player until the 14th player on the list, Cleveland Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Four highly productive seasons along with six to eight above average ones can usually make a player’s case for entry into the Hall of Fame.

Yet none of the top 13 players during the war made the Hall, proving that these players were unable to perform at the same level when up against the best and that statistically speaking the level of play during the time was lower.

Over time, we have seen baseball players, and the game at large, adapt to many significant changes that have collided to bring about many of the observed changes to the perceived caliber of play.

- The mound was lowered in 1969 from 15 inches to 10 inches in height after the dominance of pitching ( think Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA ). As a result, scouts and coaches preferred to select taller pitchers to make up the lost difference in leverage the lower mound provided. The short (under 6-foot) RHP became an endangered species in baseball as a result IMO.

- Free agency and guaranteed contracts resulting from the Curt Flood battle against the Reserve Clause has resulted in players beginning treated as more valuable commodities. Prior to 1969, even star players were considered expendable if productivity diminished even slightly. Players were on year to year contracts, security was day to day. Pitch Counts and increased use of bullpen specialists has been the slow, but inevitable outgrowth.

Structural changes such as Astroturf, Questec and increased use of PED's have brought about both observed and statistical changes and anomalies that can never be fully accounted for and so the debate will continue forever.

If you don't think that Questec was a huge and underrated development in the offense / defense equilibrium, take a look at the "strikes" called in some of those Braves - Twins World Series highlights or the infamous Eric Gregg / Livan Hernandez playoff game. There's a reason why Curt Schilling took a bat to an early version of Questec machinery that was in the Diamondbacks dugout. The handwriting was on the wall that a subtle but important pitching advantage was about to be lost.

It's one reason why I like to look to the Olympic sports, specifically track and field or swimming events, to observe and evaluate macro changes in athletes over different eras. The skill sports are too complex to assess causes and effects. The Olympic sports are ideal for statistical analysis because of their inherent simplicity: Running is a universal and fundamental athletic event. Distances don't change, gravity and friction are constants. Even in swimming, the resistance that water provides doesn't change materially over time.

----

In swimming, the 1924 Men's Olympic champion and symbol of virility for machismo for the era, Johnny Weismuller of Tarzan fame, swam a 59.0 sec. 100 meter freestyle.

USA'S JOHNNY WEISMULLER - 1924 PARIS OLYMPICS CHAMPION

In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Germany's Britta Steffen swam the same event in 53.12 seconds. American Natalie Coughlin swan it in 53.39 seconds for an American record. Both times would have obliterated Weismuller's time.

GERMANY'S BRITTE STEFFEN - 2008 BEJING OLYMPIC CHAMPION

In fact, Weismuller's time would have finished 47th in the world in the 2008 100 meter freestyle qualifying heats. In the women's qualifying heats.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle


---

In track and field, the 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens would be challenged to beat the current women's 100 meter champion, Jamaica's Shelly-Ann Fraser. Owens won the 1936 event with a 10.3 sec. time. Fraser's 2008 100 meter time of 10.78 would have placed her sixth in the 1936 men's 100 meter championship heat and made her the fourth fastest American at the time.

Jesse Owens was 5'10" and 165. Fraser tips in at 5'3" and 115. A shorter version, pound for pound of Owens. Looking at some of these comparisons, I am with David Wells -- a Babe Ruth fan -- when he says "15-70-.270" to state what he believes Babe Ruth's stat line would be today.

No night games, no sliders, he may have been exaggerating a little bit, but not by much.

The pre-war American athlete, in many instances, can only compare favorably to female athletes today. Once again demonstrating that the Nixon-era Title IX legislation may have been one of the most underrated pieces of legislation of all time in this country.

There are simply too many factors to consider to make a definitive answer to the underlying question we started with, which is why this question will continue to be fuel for debate for many generations to come.

Just Thinking....Random Thoughts

ROGER CLEMENS BACK IN THE NEWS:

Talk about hubris, pot meet kettle? A congressman chastising someone about hubris? And lying to the public? Are you kidding me?

Rep. Tom Davis from Virginia regarding the Clemens indictment.

"We didn't wish this on Clemens, I guarantee you. But there are people who think they can bluff their way through, and it's hubris. ... These matters are taken very seriously. We impeached a president [Bill Clinton] for lying in a deposition. Nobody's above the law, including the president and All-Star pitchers."

My only question is -- and continues to be -- where is the punishment when those in Congress lie to the public? Somehow, "see you in November" doesn't seem good enough for some of the crimes these guys have pulled off, but that's for another rant.

As we've seen in the Bonds situation, it's a long way from an indictment to a conviction. Never mind Bonds. How about the Blago trial up here in Illinois? The prosecutor promised multiple convictions and a virtual life sentence behind bars for Blago leading up to the trial and ended up going 1 for 24 in court. That's a .042 batting average if you're scoring at home.

Brian McNamee admittedly was not a very credible witness, but his story was supported somewhat by Pettitte. We'll see if that support holds as strong in a trial phase.

I'm a little concerned when I hear comments like those from a Buster Olney where he said with, no qualms whatsoever, that "once Clemens was named in the Mitchell Report, there was no way for him to clear his name". Case closed. That's not justice. To say nothing of the appearance at least that Palmiero, Sosa and perhaps McGwire either lied or obstructed Congress and walked away virtually unscathed. Not good for confidence in the Justice system, if that was the intent. It gets to the selectivity of prosecution question which erodes confidence.
------

TONY DUNGY CALLS REX RYAN OUT ON CUSSING:

And people go stark raving stupid. Especially Jets fan. If you really want to lose faith in your fellow man, read the comments section after some of these stories. I'm going to come down on Tony Dungy's side in most if not all comparisons with Rex Ryan. If Jet fan needs a second Super Bowl ring that bad, so be it. To compare what Coach Dungy is trying to do for Michael Vick versus his criticism of Ryan's behavior as justification for dismissal of Dungy's comments misses the point. It's the same point. Bad behavior. If you justify by matter of degree, I can make a justification for Vick by saying he didn't kill a human being, lay off him.

Rex Ryan is a tool trying to project an image of cool. To the extent that Roger Goodell has decided he wants to clean up the NFL's image and modify behavior of players on and off the field, it doesn't seem like a stretch for the leaders of said players to be held to some standards of behavior as well.
--------

OMG!! APPARENTLY SHE FOUND A TURKEY BASTER SUITABLE ENOUGH FOR HER HIGH STANDARDS!!

BILL SIMMONS PROVES ONCE AGAIN WHY HE'S THE BEST

In one of his more recent articles Bill Simmons bring it on.

A few theories to chew on

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100820

Not so much the Nolan Ryan - Robin Ventura fight theory, but further down, the Jennifer Anniston riff. I mean first off, a Jennifer Anniston riff in the middle of sports story. BRILLIANT. Because who hasn't wondered the same?

Chewed-On Theory No. 3: "Why can't Jennifer Aniston find a man?"

Point by point, cannot disagree and Simmons starts off in lawyer like fashion making his case.

On the surface, this has nothing to do with sports. Just bear with me. Aniston became an A-list star thanks to "Friends." When the show folded in 2004, unlike everyone else on the cast, she managed to remain an A-List star despite making the following movies.

Point by point, cannot disagree. Then comes the classic blast -- that you can only hope by the grace of God you are not sipping coffee at the time you read it -- because it pounds the point home in a way that only Simmons can.

Aniston's life resonates with that demographic better than anyone. Now she's 41, still hunting for a man, her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell, but we're all a little confused because … I mean, how could Jennifer Aniston, of all people, not find a man? How could someone that attractive need a friend to set her up on dates? What the hell is going on here? Is she secretly super-annoying? Is she terrible in bed? Does she have bad breath or bad hygiene? Are her standards simply too high? Does she still pine for Pitt and any potential mate can sense it?

...her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell.....WOW!!! I hope dude is not single, looking to mingle after a blast like that, because those kind of comments get around.
--------
JENNIE FINCH RETIRES FROM SOFTBALL

JENNIE FINCH ABOUT TO THROW ONE PAST A-ROD

It did not get as much play as it probably should have, but Jennie Finch retired from softball. She likely did as much or more for the growth of the sport at the youth and HS levels in recent years as anybody, for a lot of reasons. When she carried the torch for womens softball, the torch was in good hands. She will be missed.

------
JAY MARIOTTI, A CAUTIONARY TALE

Now the subject of tabloid journalism sensationalism and he doesn't like it. After years of being on the firing end of the firing squad, he and his ilk, have a problem with the process.

A process they helped to nourish, build and profit from, comes tumbling down on them. What's the proper term? Poetic justice?

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/21/jay-mariotti-espn-sports-writer-arrested-los-angeles-felony/

Mariotti was arrested on a felony charge at 4:30 AM -- a police source tells us it is a domestic violence charge.

He was held on $50,000 bail and released shortly after noon.

Mariotti is a regular on the ESPN show "Around the Horn" and a writer for the popular sports website Fanhouse.com.

I'm sure this goes past guys like Mariotti, but I'll try anyway.


Matthew 7:1-3

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Like Yogi Berra once noted in comparing baseball to church, "Many attend, few understand".
----

Also prominent in the news, two young athletes, both early in the process of writing the story of their athletic lives. LeBron James and Tim Tebow.

YES, INDEED. WE ARE ALL WITNESSES.

But ask yourself exactly what are we all witness to? And where exactly are our eyes fixed?

LeBron James came to Cleveland with all of the following labels.

Chosen One, King James, Savior of the Franchise.

He leaves looking as if he believes the Cleveland franchise/owner treated him with the same lack of respect as that goofy JetBlue flight attendant.

Passengers say flight attendant Steven Slater was rude, and prompted the infamous confrontation with passengers. The Associated Press
WHAT A SURPRISE! HE LOOKS SO NORMAL!

A staggering fall from grace? Maybe not, when you come to the city billed as a Messiah and you leave delivering little more than that which was previously delivered by Craig Ehlo.

He and the Cavalier fans believed that he was chosen by destiny to perform a task that nobody else could perform. Throw in the hometown boy makes good angle and you have the all the ingredients for an epic movie.

The good fans of Cleveland are likely more mad at themselves for falling for the shlocky media (over)-hype that was the LeBron James experience than they are mad at LeBron James himself. So get over yourself LeBron, it's not always about you, dude.

They realize in hindsight that they were not only simply witnesses, but active participants in the (over)-hype, the false idolatry, the somewhat over-the-top hero worship and are slowly coming to their senses. I applaud their newly found wisdom.

By contrast we see how Tim Tebow handled his "exit" or last game with the Florida Gators. He chose the message from Hebrews 12:1-2 that includes the words "since we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses" to pay homage to the fans who supported him during his time there.



HEBREWS 12:1-2

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

One of the prevailing themes from this passage is that we are all very much in debt to those who raised us, taught us, nurtured us and helped us get to our current station. The best way to repay that debt is to pass along the same kindness to others, to better the lot of those around us and help those less fortunate than ourselves. It is encouragement to remain steadfast in their mission with eyes focused on the ultimate prize and to persevere through patience, endurance and faith to victory. Tim Tebow gets it.

What LeBron doesn't get is that the greatest sin he committed against the fans of Cleveland -- and the franchise and his former teammates -- is that he did not return the faith that they so clearly placed in him, as the "Chosen One". He basked in all the glory bestowed upon him when times were good. But unfortunately, he chose to abandon ship once the going got a little tough and took his "talents" to Miami. In doing so, he proved himself unworthy of the titles bestowed upon him by the fans and the over indulgent media.

There is no doubt as to where the focus of a Tim Tebow lies. It is clear where his eyes are fixed and the story his life will tell. He has already proven that he is winner and a champion, on and off the field.

LeBron has his eyes fixed on what he deems his birthright, a championship. We are all "witnesses" to where a focus on that kind of self-entitled, self-interested, worldly pursuit has led him so far. I say good luck to you in your pursuit of a shiny ring, LeBron. It should be an interesting and cautionary story that your life will tell.

This is what Nike has "witnessed" so far about Mr. Tebow.

from St. Pete Times article:
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/is-tim-tebow-the-greatest-sports-marketing-machine-ever/1115036

Talk about Tebow to people who work in the overlapping industries of sports and entertainment and business and a handful of words and phrases keep coming up. Authentic. Sincere. Moral. Winner. Champion. Leader. Presence. Humility. Clean-cut. All-American.

"It's safe to say he's got unprecedented numbers heading into a rookie season," E-Poll president Gerry Philpott said of Tebow's current Q rating. Q in this case doesn't stand for quarterback. This Q rating measures a celebrity's overall popularity and appeal.

According to the Davie-Brown Index, he outranks Michael Jordan, maybe the most famous athlete in history, in categories like trustworthiness, compassion and sincerity, and it's not even close.

"He's got a unique background among athletes," E-Poll's Randy Parker said. "He's perceived as having high standards and a different sort of ethical stance than many athletes."

Good stuff.

JAPANESE GIRL DRAFTED TO PRO MENS LEAGUE

THE JAPANESE ARE NOT AFRAID TO BREAK THE MOLD TO FIND NEW PITCHING TALENT

Note: The young lady pictured above is not the girl referenced in the story.

--------------
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2008/11/17/baseball-japanese-girl-selected-to-play-in-professional-men-s-league.aspx

A 16-year-old schoolgirl with a mean knuckleball has been selected as the first woman ever to play alongside the men in Japanese professional baseball.

Eri Yoshida was drafted for a new independent league that will launch in April, drawing attention for a side-armed knuckler that her future manager Yoshihiro Nakata said was a marvel.

"I never dreamed of getting drafted," Yoshida told reporters Monday, a day after she was selected to play for the Kobe 9 Cruise.

"I have only just been picked by the team and have not achieved anything," she said. "I want to play as a pro eventually in a higher league."

Yoshida, 5-foot-0 tall and weighing 114 pounds, says she wants to follow in the footsteps of the great Boston Red Sox knuckleballer Tim Wakefield.

A female professional baseball federation existed for a few years in the 1950s, but Yoshida will become Japan's first-ever woman to play alongside professional male players.
--------------
I have always thought that this would likely be the fastest route for the first woman to play professionally in the "major" American sports at the highest level.

In football, other than as a kicker who was very accurate from 40 and under, I don't see a woman who could crack an NFL roster in my lifetime.

In basketball, maybe a crack three-point shooter--a la Steve Kerr--could be a possibility as the first woman NBA player.

In baseball, a woman pitcher with a killer knuckle ball or a splitter could pitch effectively at any level. I don't see any major league caliber hitters on the horizon anytime soon. Which is fair, because I don't see any major league hitters capable of hitting Jennie Finch.


絵里の3つの歓声!!!!!
which means, three cheers for Eri, according to Google translation.


ERI YOSHIDA - DRAFTED BY JAPANESE MENS LEAGUE