SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Pedro
May 19, 2016 6:47:13 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2016 6:47:13 GMT -5
Keep in mind that one of those two was a defenseman. That's like comparing stats for a pitcher vs a hitter. Soon after Wayne set the all time scoring record, the NHL Hall of Fame had a member vote for the all time greatest NHL player. Orr won in a total landslide. lol, no promises but I'll try to find the story, it was a very well written piece. I just realized that. Anyway, the plus/minus should be comparable, didn't check that yet. But interesting and I really like that a defenseman gets that much respect! Orr changed the game like Babe Ruth. Ruth brought power to baseball. Orr brought offense to the defenseman position.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 19, 2016 11:11:43 GMT -5
What Orr did, like Jimed and others mentioned was like Babe Ruth being the best pitcher in the league other than Walter Johnson, and also changing the entire game into power hitting. Further, and this is more subjective, not apples to apples but I will argue that while even exciting baseball plays are rapid and truncated, the other three major sports afford multiple plays and moves to be done at once- a running back making moves around one player then another then another. Orr was by far the best at starting at his own net then faking out a fore checker, then another, then a defenseman then a goalie up the ice with unbelievable moves, each unique to that moment, and at record speed in what's already the fastest game in the world. I would argue he was therfore the most exciting player of all time in any sport. Gretzky was just a wonderful finisher who made those moves from the blue line in. Also, not the great all around player at all ends of the ice Orr was. In the 1973 playoffs against the NY Rangers he started from behind his net and made amazing moves to fake out two players, then leaned in to his left and held off the defenseman with his left arm and roofed a backhand over the goalie with his right.
He was always amazingly humble and continues to give to children and causes and gets pissed if his anonymity in that is blown. His autobiography doesn't laud his individual plays but serves as a mentor ship for parents and shares life wisdom in general. Phill, I would love access to that hockey hall of fame vote, because sadly as more writers die who saw Orr play, the opinion swings toward Gretzky, similarly to the way today's voters in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame basically shunned the greatest classic rock bands and elected more current bands who couldn't light a candle to them talent wise and compositionally (I play and write classic rock myself).
|
|
|
Pedro
May 19, 2016 12:57:10 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 19, 2016 12:57:10 GMT -5
What Orr did, like Jimed and others mentioned was like Babe Ruth being the best pitcher in the league other than Walter Johnson, and also changing the entire game into power hitting. Further, and this is more subjective, not apples to apples but I will argue that while even exciting baseball plays are rapid and truncated, the other three major sports afford multiple plays and moves to be done at once- a running back making moves around one player then another then another. Orr was by far the best at starting at his own net then faking out a fore checker, then another, then a defenseman then a goalie up the ice with unbelievable moves, each unique to that moment, and at record speed in what's already the fastest game in the world. I would argue he was therfore the most exciting player of all time in any sport. Gretzky was just a wonderful finisher who made those moves from the blue line in. Also, not the great all around player at all ends of the ice Orr was. In the 1973 playoffs against the NY Rangers he started from behind his net and made amazing moves to fake out two players, then leaned in to his left and held off the defenseman with his left arm and roofed a backhand over the goalie with his right. He was always amazingly humble and continues to give to children and causes and gets pissed if his anonymity in that is blown. His autobiography doesn't laud his individual plays but serves as a mentor ship for parents and shares life wisdom in general. Phill, I would love access to that hockey hall of fame vote, because sadly as more writers die who saw Orr play, the opinion swings toward Gretzky, similarly to the way today's voters in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame basically shunned the greatest classic rock bands and elected more current bands who couldn't light a candle to them talent wise and compositionally(I play and write classic rock myself). Amen to that (bolded). You get non rock and roll groups into that HOF but Deep Purple had to wait that long? I hope that in the future the Baseball HOF voters change for the better as they get younger (opposite of the Rock N Roll HOF or Hockey HOF).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 19, 2016 14:48:46 GMT -5
I tried to find the article but had no luck with my first attempt (it's going to be one of those deals with a bazillion matches that don't apply in Google search.) I'll try again later.
On another note, KLaw weighs in on our thread (at least the original).
Chris: Seen a couple “Kershaw might be the best pitcher ever” stories of late. Who is the best pitcher of the “modern era” in your opinion? Klaw: Pedro. But Kershaw’s creepin’.
Also something of note, I've seen 2 12 year old sports players getting national attention. Bobby Orr and Bryce Harper.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 19, 2016 16:05:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 19, 2016 16:05:25 GMT -5
I hope it's ok to add this to a thread that has gone wide. I was watching the day Orr killed off more than a minuet when short handed. He skated up and down, didn't seem winded when he tossed the puck and went in for a change. Never saw anything like it before or since in sports. He looked like he was toying with the other team. Roger's first 20 k game is second with me. Pedro was way more dominant in his 17-K game against the Yankees, who were an infinitely better team than the '86 Mariners. That game by Roger was awesome, but Pedro's was far more impressive to me.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 19, 2016 16:10:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on May 19, 2016 16:10:21 GMT -5
What Orr did, like Jimed and others mentioned was like Babe Ruth being the best pitcher in the league other than Walter Johnson, and also changing the entire game into power hitting. Further, and this is more subjective, not apples to apples but I will argue that while even exciting baseball plays are rapid and truncated, the other three major sports afford multiple plays and moves to be done at once- a running back making moves around one player then another then another. Orr was by far the best at starting at his own net then faking out a fore checker, then another, then a defenseman then a goalie up the ice with unbelievable moves, each unique to that moment, and at record speed in what's already the fastest game in the world. I would argue he was therfore the most exciting player of all time in any sport. Gretzky was just a wonderful finisher who made those moves from the blue line in. Also, not the great all around player at all ends of the ice Orr was. In the 1973 playoffs against the NY Rangers he started from behind his net and made amazing moves to fake out two players, then leaned in to his left and held off the defenseman with his left arm and roofed a backhand over the goalie with his right. He was always amazingly humble and continues to give to children and causes and gets pissed if his anonymity in that is blown. His autobiography doesn't laud his individual plays but serves as a mentor ship for parents and shares life wisdom in general. Phill, I would love access to that hockey hall of fame vote, because sadly as more writers die who saw Orr play, the opinion swings toward Gretzky, similarly to the way today's voters in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame basically shunned the greatest classic rock bands and elected more current bands who couldn't light a candle to them talent wise and compositionally (I play and write classic rock myself). The loss of awe to the passage of time is one of those inevitable, but sad, aspects of life. People talk about "exciting" and "dynamic" players in the game today, and every once in a while I remember Rickey Henderson in his prime, and I shrug. I've never been a big hockey fan, but I grew up when Gretzky was in his prime. I've seen enough footage of Orr to know Gretzky's not that close.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Pedro
May 20, 2016 1:49:59 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on May 20, 2016 1:49:59 GMT -5
What Orr did, like Jimed and others mentioned was like Babe Ruth being the best pitcher in the league other than Walter Johnson, and also changing the entire game into power hitting. Further, and this is more subjective, not apples to apples but I will argue that while even exciting baseball plays are rapid and truncated, the other three major sports afford multiple plays and moves to be done at once- a running back making moves around one player then another then another. Orr was by far the best at starting at his own net then faking out a fore checker, then another, then a defenseman then a goalie up the ice with unbelievable moves, each unique to that moment, and at record speed in what's already the fastest game in the world. I would argue he was therfore the most exciting player of all time in any sport. Gretzky was just a wonderful finisher who made those moves from the blue line in. Also, not the great all around player at all ends of the ice Orr was. In the 1973 playoffs against the NY Rangers he started from behind his net and made amazing moves to fake out two players, then leaned in to his left and held off the defenseman with his left arm and roofed a backhand over the goalie with his right. He was always amazingly humble and continues to give to children and causes and gets pissed if his anonymity in that is blown. His autobiography doesn't laud his individual plays but serves as a mentor ship for parents and shares life wisdom in general. Phill, I would love access to that hockey hall of fame vote, because sadly as more writers die who saw Orr play, the opinion swings toward Gretzky, similarly to the way today's voters in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame basically shunned the greatest classic rock bands and elected more current bands who couldn't light a candle to them talent wise and compositionally(I play and write classic rock myself). Amen to that (bolded). You get non rock and roll groups into that HOF but Deep Purple had to wait that long? I hope that in the future the Baseball HOF voters change for the better as they get younger (opposite of the Rock N Roll HOF or Hockey HOF). The problems with the RnR HOF go much deeper. There was a time in my life when rock music was the most important thing to me, and I wrote for local 'zines for 10 years -- with no ambition to write for a national rag, since to me the obviously most important role a critic could play was to let people know about great talent in their own city, thus helping those bands have careers. And yet I've never paid any attention to the HOF. The problem is that, of all of our major areas of achievement, popular music is probably the one where quality / talent / skill has the smallest contribution to success relative to extrinsic factors. And yet the criterion for Hall inclusion seems pretty much to be entirely success. Begin with the fact that acts that music insiders consider to be world-class often sell less records than lesser talents, because their stuff is more complex and less accessible to the masses. So bands like Spirit and Procol Harum have no chance at the HOF despite the fact that the music they made in their prime was tremendous, and reasonably successful in their day. I would assert that if Pet Sounds had been the Beach Boys' debut album, they would unquestionably not be in the Hall. But that's just scratching the surface of this problem. It's next to impossible to be a good enough hitter or pitcher to start in MLB and yet never have a pro career, but the equivalent happens routinely in rock 'n' roll. If you'd taken a poll of Boston clubgoers in 1977, The Cars versus The Atlantics, the Atlantics would have won that 70-30. But the Cars had a great manager and the Atlantics had an inept one, and the Cars are the Cars while the Atlantics don't even have a Wikipedia page. Management, proper record company treatment, and other external factors play enormous roles in success. And sometimes they undermine the careers of important, influential artists, and reduce them to apparent footnotes. And so it is that anyone who really knows rock 'n' roll history would not hesitate to include The 13th Floor Elevators and Big Star on any list of the most influential acts in rock history. That neither is in the Hall is an embarrassment. The Elevators, in particular, are a serious candidate for the single most influential act in rock history, if you limit the choices to stylistic innovators rather than synthesizers (the David Bowie exclusion clause). (A fact that comes in handy whenever a large new book purporting to be a rock 'n' roll history is published -- just look them up in the index and ignore the book if they're not mentioned.) Given how much luck it takes to sell a lot of records, and how small the correlation is between record sales and influence and/or quality, the Rock HOF is the one Hall where actual fame needs to be just part of the induction equation. But it appears to be all of it.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Pedro
May 21, 2016 8:18:00 GMT -5
Post by TearsIn04 on May 21, 2016 8:18:00 GMT -5
Red Sox fans absolutely nailed it in choosing Ted, Yaz, Pedro and Papi as the all-time Franchise Four in connection with last year's All-Star game. And I'll tell you I'd take our top four over any other franchise in BB and yes, I'm including the MF f'in Y in this. Think about it: the Greatest Hitter Who Ever Lived, the P with the greatest prime dominance ever, probably the greatest clutch hitter ever, and, oh yeah, a guy who merely saved BB in Boston with a season for the ages and then went on to be the first 3,000/400 AL player and has a closet full of GGs.
It's amazing how a moderate-size city like Boston has so many athletes who are at least in the conversation for the Greatest something or other. Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of sports. TB12 is at a minimum in the conversation for Greatest QB ever. Orr in hockey. Larry Bird is the most successful basketball guy ever. He was college Player of the Year, NBA MVP three times, Coach of the Year and then Executive of the Year. Nobody has ever come close to that.
I wouldn't trade the Boston sports experience for anything. It doesn't get any better than we have it.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on May 22, 2016 15:14:07 GMT -5
Great post as always Eric. The height of my rock n roll hof frustration was having Kiss just make it in and Yes being excluded. It takes me months to learn to play a yes song on guitar. Yes checked all the boxes- individually as talented musicians as any band had, amazingly complex compositions with great tempo and genre changes, melodies that could make me cry with their beauty- and a tremendously long career and right in the vanguard of classic rock for a legacy. And despite a truly unique sound, they were able to bring audiences along for the ride- they at one point outsold every band ever at Madison square garden.
The frustration with music runs personally too. I just mastered my first CD hiring some top session players (7 time Grammy nominee Kim Stone is on bass). I sing with a deep country accent on one song, sing in a David Bowie accent in another two, rap in a ghetto accent in another, and a high tenor in yet another. There's funk, pop, rock, country, jazz and ballads written aoubt all types of topics from love, spiritual, environmental to a football song. The musicians and engineers were blown away, yet I'm too old and work too hard to tour and will not put in the nonstop work on social media needed to get on the map. The only very long shot hope seems to be to pitch songs to publishers and hope to recoup just a fraction of the expenses of tracking and mastering at high quality studios.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Pedro
May 23, 2016 16:05:00 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on May 23, 2016 16:05:00 GMT -5
Great post as always Eric. The height of my rock n roll hof frustration was having Kiss just make it in and Yes being excluded. It takes me months to learn to play a yes song on guitar. Yes checked all the boxes- individually as talented musicians as any band had, amazingly complex compositions with great tempo and genre changes, melodies that could make me cry with their beauty- and a tremendously long career and right in the vanguard of classic rock for a legacy. And despite a truly unique sound, they were able to bring audiences along for the ride- they at one point outsold every band ever at Madison square garden. The frustration with music runs personally too. I just mastered my first CD hiring some top session players (7 time Grammy nominee Kim Stone is on bass). I sing with a deep country accent on one song, sing in a David Bowie accent in another two, rap in a ghetto accent in another, and a high tenor in yet another. There's funk, pop, rock, country, jazz and ballads written aoubt all types of topics from love, spiritual, environmental to a football song. The musicians and engineers were blown away, yet I'm too old and work too hard to tour and will not put in the nonstop work on social media needed to get on the map. The only very long shot hope seems to be to pitch songs to publishers and hope to recoup just a fraction of the expenses of tracking and mastering at high quality studios. I don't think Kiss was a mistake. They're music was never great, but it was plenty good enough, and they were very original and influential. There are bands whose inclusion is laughable, though. Here's an example, in the form of a sentence no human being has ever spoken: "My life was changed when I heard Steve Miller's "The Joker" -- I didn't know rock 'n' roll could do that!" Compare that to the 13th Floor Elevators going to SF and playing the same sort of trippy, avowedly "psychedelic" stuff that the Dead and Airplane had just started messing with, only within the context of four-chord garage rock instead of folk / jazz, which is to say, twice as loud and five times as hard. That changed everything. And the less trippy stuff was idolized by all the NYC bands that started punk as we know it. They induct old blues guys as "early influences." At the very least, then, have a wing of special inductees for contemporary influences. Without Pere Ubu and Wire, no Mission Burma, without Burma, no R.E.M. or Pixies, without Pixies, no Nirvana. Or to use an example less close to my heart and thus way more objective, without Roxy Music you lose a huge chunk of Bowie's career and a huge number of folks he influenced. Oh, Yes. At one point in my life they were my second favorite band (after Procol Harum). Their show at the Music Hall on the Close to the Edge tour remains one of the five or so best I've ever seen. I kind of outgrew the music a bit when I got into punk and classical, and I had previously decided that Jon Anderson was the worst lyricist in the history of rock. However, on the list of things I want to do before I die that I sincerely doubt I'll ever have time to do is to master Audacity and then trim the excess 3 to 5 minutes from "The Revealing Science of God" (except for the fat, their pinnacle) and then edit the other three sides of Tales From Typographic Errors into a piece just as long. Now, of all the groups identified as "prog," they were clearly the best artistically and the most commercially successful, right? How can the Hall voters ignore an entire viable and well-loved subgenre? I think it's because too many rock critics, led by the musically incompetent Robert Christgau, believe that rock music should not try to be good. It's an affront to their ears if you try anything unusual harmonically, rhythmically, or structurally. (And no, Genesis does not qualify as the token "prog" group -- they're in there because they sold out and went pop. That just makes the snub worse!) Your studio work sounds very cool. I suspect you wouldn't have done it if you weren't doing it primarily for yourself -- I've got a whole bunch of songs that exist only in my head, and I'm still toying with the idea of assembling some friends from 1976 to work them up. I think the idea of trying to sell the songs to publishers is a great one, and your doing the appropriate accent for each style is going to help that a lot. Good luck and keep us posted (probably in the thread in the off-topic forum that will be spun off from here)!
|
|
|
Pedro
May 23, 2016 16:12:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Canseco on May 23, 2016 16:12:44 GMT -5
Great post as always Eric. The height of my rock n roll hof frustration was having Kiss just make it in and Yes being excluded. It takes me months to learn to play a yes song on guitar. Yes checked all the boxes- individually as talented musicians as any band had, amazingly complex compositions with great tempo and genre changes, melodies that could make me cry with their beauty- and a tremendously long career and right in the vanguard of classic rock for a legacy. And despite a truly unique sound, they were able to bring audiences along for the ride- they at one point outsold every band ever at Madison square garden. The frustration with music runs personally too. I just mastered my first CD hiring some top session players (7 time Grammy nominee Kim Stone is on bass). I sing with a deep country accent on one song, sing in a David Bowie accent in another two, rap in a ghetto accent in another, and a high tenor in yet another. There's funk, pop, rock, country, jazz and ballads written aoubt all types of topics from love, spiritual, environmental to a football song. The musicians and engineers were blown away, yet I'm too old and work too hard to tour and will not put in the nonstop work on social media needed to get on the map. The only very long shot hope seems to be to pitch songs to publishers and hope to recoup just a fraction of the expenses of tracking and mastering at high quality studios. I don't think Kiss was a mistake. They're music was never great, but it was plenty good enough, and they were very original and influential. There are bands whose inclusion is laughable, though. Here's an example, in the form of a sentence no human being has ever spoken: "My life was changed when I heard Steve Miller's "The Joker" -- I didn't know rock 'n' roll could do that!" Compare that to the 13th Floor Elevators going to SF and playing the same sort of trippy, avowedly "psychedelic" stuff that the Dead and Airplane had just started messing with, only within the context of four-chord garage rock instead of folk / jazz, which is to say, twice as loud and five times as hard. That changed everything. And the less trippy stuff was idolized by all the NYC bands that started punk as we know it. They induct old blues guys as "early influences." At the very least, then, have a wing of special inductees for contemporary influences. Without Pere Ubu and Wire, no Mission Burma, without Burma, no R.E.M. or Pixies, without Pixies, no Nirvana. Or to use an example less close to my heart and thus way more objective, without Roxy Music you lose a huge chunk of Bowie's career and a huge number of folks he influenced. Oh, Yes. At one point in my life they were my second favorite band (after Procol Harum). Their show at the Music Hall on the Close to the Edge tour remains one of the five or so best I've ever seen. I kind of outgrew the music a bit when I got into punk and classical, and I had previously decided that Jon Anderson was the worst lyricist in the history of rock. However, on the list of things I want to do before I die that I sincerely doubt I'll ever have time to do is to master Audacity and then trim the excess 3 to 5 minutes from "The Revealing Science of God" (except for the fat, their pinnacle) and then edit the other three sides of Tales From Typographic Errors into a piece just as long. Now, of all the groups identified as "prog," they were clearly the best artistically and the most commercially successful, right? How can the Hall voters ignore an entire viable and well-loved subgenre? I think it's because too many rock critics, led by the musically incompetent Robert Christgau, believe that rock music should not try to be good. It's an affront to their ears if you try anything unusual harmonically, rhythmically, or structurally. (And no, Genesis does not qualify as the token "prog" group -- they're in there because they sold out and went pop. That just makes the snub worse!) Your studio work sounds very cool. I suspect you wouldn't have done it if you weren't doing it primarily for yourself -- I've got a whole bunch of songs that exist only in my head, and I'm still toying with the idea of assembling some friends from 1976 to work them up. I think the idea of trying to sell the songs to publishers is a great one, and your doing the appropriate accent for each style is going to help that a lot. Good luck and keep us posted (probably in the thread in the off-topic forum that will be spun off from here)! What are your thoughts on Nirvana, Eric? The "holy shit" moment happened to me back in the 90s when I first listened to their powerful engine rock. Totally authentic, straight forward message.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on May 23, 2016 16:31:54 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on Nirvana, Eric? The "holy shit" moment happened to me back in the 90s when I first listened to their powerful engine rock. Totally authentic, straight forward message. My reaction needs a bit of historical context. When punk happened in '76 my friends and I, and punk fans everywhere, thought it would be hugely successful commercially. And of course we were right -- the Ramones' "Blitzkrieg Bop" is a staple in ballparks, Iggy and the Stooges "Search and Destroy" (second greatest rock single of all time after "I Can See For Miles") is right at this moment in a car commercial! The problem is, of course, we were off by thirty years or so. In 1976, people hated punk. By the time 1991 rolled around we had all given up on punk ever selling any records. (And by "we," of course, I include Kurt Cobain. Which is a related but different story.) I saw the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video on MTV. I can still remember the moment vividly. I can still remember driving the next day and deciding, I have to buy that album. Today. Realize that it was not because it was in any way stylistically fresh to my ears. They had gotten the loud / soft from the Pixies who had cribbed it from Mission of Burma's "That's When I Reach For My Revolver" ( a song whose loud part I had heard in the band's basement rehearsal space months before the soft part was even written). It was just that it was so f-ing good. A perfect mix of the energy of original punk and the smarts of post-punk. I can't imagine how it must have sounded to someone who had never heard their influences! What I had no idea, at the time, was that a million people had seen the video and had the same reaction. And the rest is history.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 23, 2016 16:56:26 GMT -5
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 16:56:26 GMT -5
Nirvana is overrated because Cobain died. And I'm a fan. I have to guess that if he didn't die, Nirvana would be held in the same regard as Guns N Roses, i.e. who cares if they get back together because Axl is so awful now? But they were unbelievable and caught lightning in a bottle for a short period of time. I don't think there's a chance in hell they would have held up like Pearl Jam.
And Eric, great call on the Pixies, one of my all time favorites. Many bands were influenced by them.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Pedro
May 23, 2016 20:10:25 GMT -5
Post by ericmvan on May 23, 2016 20:10:25 GMT -5
Nirvana is overrated because Cobain died. And I'm a fan. I have to guess that if he didn't die, Nirvana would be held in the same regard as Guns N Roses, i.e. who cares if they get back together because Axl is so awful now? But they were unbelievable and caught lightning in a bottle for a short period of time. I don't think there's a chance in hell they would have held up like Pearl Jam. And Eric, great call on the Pixies, one of my all time favorites. Many bands were influenced by them. That's a defensible opinion about Nirvana's musical quality. They're not in the inner circle for greatest average quality of albums. or sum quantity of great stuff. But to say they are overrated because of that, or they wouldn;t be held in such high regard i they'd continued, is missing the point. Imagine a world where Pearl Jam had never existed. No Pearl Jam, which is a loss. No Stone Temple Pilots or any of their other lame imitators (in the day I could rattle off their names), which is a partially offsetting win. And a musical landscape which is otherwise unchanged. Whereas Nirvana was arguably the most commercially influential act in the history of rock. Certainly so for non-innovators. They took a well-defined and widely unpopular 16-year-old subgenre and made it hugely popular. No one else has ever done that. And it'll probably never happen again. It's like some prog band in 1987 sold 15 million albums and now they use prog to sell beer and smartphones.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 24, 2016 6:11:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 24, 2016 6:11:01 GMT -5
I have always said to everyone I ever knew that the Pedro Martinez change up is the best single pitch I have ever seen a pitcher throw.
It wasn't even a change up in my eyes. It was a screwball on steroids. The fact that he could dot the corner with it, after putting a fastball in the same exact spot on the pitch prior was the mark of a true artist.
We will never see another pitcher like Pedro ever again. He had the best adjusted ERA in the best offensive era known to baseball. Aka the steriod era.
Only Ortiz (the single handedly most important player in Sox history) comes even close to Pedro Martinez for me but even then, Pedro is always first.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 24, 2016 6:50:32 GMT -5
Post by kingofthetrill on May 24, 2016 6:50:32 GMT -5
I have always said to everyone I ever knew that the Pedro Martinez change up is the best single pitch I have ever seen a pitcher throw. It wasn't even a change up in my eyes. It was a screwball on steroids. The fact that he could dot the corner with it, after putting a fastball in the same exact spot on the pitch prior was the mark of a true artist. I remember watching a slow mo of Pedro's changeup in the early 2000's and I tried to throw that pitch based on his grip/release and I felt like I almost snapped my wrist. He was as much of a magician as anything else.
|
|
|
Pedro
May 25, 2016 18:31:48 GMT -5
Post by cologneredsox on May 25, 2016 18:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
|