I have seen guys throw 100 MPH and I have seen guys throw hard heavy pitches. It is a rare player to throw that fast and that hard! Pedro Martinez used to throw heavy ball but I don't think he topped out over 97. Probably most because he was a starter and wasn't looking to crank it up like that. Randy Johnson is probably the only guy I can think of that threw so fast and so heavy.
I like the Reds but don't really have a team for MLB. Watching the pitching last night was awesome!
Pedro was something man. A lot of people might make the mistake of remembering him for the last few years where he held on way to long but when he was hitting the mid to high 90's, he was virtually unhittable for a stretch of a few years. He might have had the most devastating changeup I've ever seen. NOTHING changed from a mechanical standpoint when he threw 90+ or changed speeds. He made a career out of making some really good (and juiced) hitters look miserable at the plate.
Randy was something too. Obviously a guy that big with his fastball as powefull as his garners a ton of attention but a lot of people forget he had one of the premier sliders in baseball. He'd sweep that thing across lefties and into righties at 90 plus and it was near impossible to hit.
I don't watch much of the Reds, mostly because its the NL and its boring, bad baseball. I wonder if a Reds fan can shed a little light for me-Does Chapman have a second pitch? He may not need one if he can locate the missile he has in his arm, but just curious. A guy with his velocity and a nice curve or slider will make closing games a formality for Reds fans...as it stands, I'm sure there aren't too many fast pulses when he steps on the mound
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Chapman last night was throwing heat but I think he was throwing a slider too. Being a lefty and watching that thing fly across the plate was scary looking.
Randy was scary because for most right handed hitters, that ball comes from behind you and they said they couldn't see the ball till it was almost to the plate. He was straight nasty.
Yeah, it is unfortunate how Pedro hung on there at the end with the Mets. Also unfortunate that his prime was wasted with the Expos and a cursed Red Sox team for most of his career. I remember him straight dominating games in the playoffs with no run support. The team around him failed big time but he was lights out in the playoffs, as well as the regular season. Everytime the Yankees faced him, you just thought the Yankees were going to lose.
Pedro actually has a dubious distinction of throwing 9 perfect innings in a game in 1995, only to lose the perfecto in the 10th on a double. Imagine that...27 straight outs and your team can get you a run...
Scarier thought-if the Expos had the money to match their talent evaluation they may have never missed the playoffs. Randy and Pedro were both in that system at one point.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
@BREWSTER - That's actually why the Expos came to Montreal in the first place. The city had long been a huge place for minor league baseball, and residents there were dying for a pro squad. Money is the reason that baseball is forever cruel to the smaller market teams. Though the new TV contracts are helping, until a salary cap is installed, baseball will never reach any level of relative parity.
Chapman has 3 pitches, fastball, nasty slider, and a splitfinger he developed this year. I know they are working on a changeup with him as well. He was all heat last night, but when he is getting the slider over no one can touch the guy. They barely do with the heater.
I hear the arguments about parity in the MLB compared to other leagues and I don't know, I think it's over stated. Sure the Yankees and Dodgers can afford to buy huge teams but how well has it done them really? The Yankees make the playoffs every year, but is that what they are spending 200 million a year to do? They have titles more recently than my Reds of course, but there are plenty of small market teams doing very well this year. Oakland is in the playoffs, Reds, strictly by media market alone, the Cardinals are a small market team. Baltimore probably falls in that category as well. Not only are they there, but they have retained a lot of their great talent for the next few years. Milwaukee made a huge run down the stretch and usually has a competitive squad. Tampa has been very good in recent years too.
Then I look at the NFL, where there is supposed to be parity and see teams like the Bengals, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Tampa, Arizona, and St Louis who are typically if not historically bad and say, where's the parity. Overall the same teams are always horrible, and the same teams are usually really good. Then there's a few surprises each year, and teams like the Cowboys and Chargers who always just seem to be stuck in mediocrity, so I agree that the system is set up to be more fair and parity is supposed to be there, but at the end of the day there are still franchises that free agents want no part of and that are just run terribly. So, I don't see a salary cap ever really giving baseball true parity. I think adding that 2nd wildcard will do far more, the Cards have shown , just get to the playoffs and you have a shot. A LOT of teams were in on the 2nd wildcard and they weren't teams like the 2 in LA who went out and bought every player they could.
Also, is parity always a good thing? I mean just because most weeks most teams have a shot to win, or could upset a team that is thought to be better doesn't mean it's for the good of the game. There's a lot of just average to bad football played in the NFL because of the parity. It's dilluted the football in my opinion. Rarely does parity in the NFL lead to a great game being played by both teams who are really good. In my opinion it gives us a team like the Bears. They go out and house someone one night, then come back and look freakin horrible the next week against an inferior team. There just aren't really good teams battling it out, which in my opinion is when parity is good. When you have several really good teams that just duke it out in great games. That just rarely happens in the NFL>
I think parity gets a bad rap in MLB because teams literally say they can't afford a player or two. The royals can't compete because once they get a good player, they can't afford to keep them. In the NFL, supposedly teams can afford anyone as long as the salary cap fits and every team has the same amount of money that can spend. I think the cap is was makes parity seem better in the NFL despite what we really know is true.
and yes, teams like the Royals and Brewers can complain all the want about being a small market but St Louis and Cincy seems to get it done, Tampa has been competitive and Miami which has every built in distraction to make it impossible to fill the park, has won 2 world series in the past 15 years. I know small markets don't have it easy but don't tell me it can't be done because it has!
Big Markets aren't always winners either. I present to you, the Chicago White Sox and Cubs.
Now the Sox have had moderately more success than the Cubs, but neither has won as much as their perceived Market Size should indicate. Small teams HAVE to be smart about paying, scouting, and drafting and that presents them with a unique challenge that the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Phillies can sometimes buy their way around (anyone is 'smart' with 9 figures available to them). With that said, Major markets aren't always winners either.
I share your lack of sympathy for teams that are small markets and say that is the problem they can't compete. Its a challenge to be competitive in a league with limited restrictions on salaries and contracts, sure, but there are small market teams doing a hell of a lot better than their major market counterparts.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Some teams do have better advantages. I think KC hurts because the Cards are so popular. I mean, their TV deal won't be anything like what the Reds will end up getting because the Reds are kind of like the Cards in that they are regionally very popular. They are on TV in Cincinnati, Indy, Columbus, Dayton, Louisville, Lexington, Nashville, Knoxville, West Virginia, and Western North Carolina. Each of the last couple of years, they have been getting more popular in those other markets to the south like Nashville so Fox adds more games to the package for those markets.
I doubt a team like Kansas City has a prayer at ever branching out to other mid sized markets because St Louis already has. So some small market clubs do have better advantages than others. Milwaukee draws darn near 3 million per year. Oakland will never do that.
It's worth noting that "market" sizes aren't solely dependant upon geography. Whereas the city of St. Louis may not make the Rams "big market", the 'Cards certainly are: they're always selling out their stadium, and have a larger "sphere of influence" due to the fact that they overshadow the Royals more than the Rams outshadow the Cheifs.
Money-based parity is a real issue in baseball, but it's not the only problem. In baseball, more than any other sport, long-term player development is a huge key to success--that's something that matters even more in a small market, since you cannot just buy your talent developed like the Yankees or Red Sox can. This places a massive premium on the actions of GMs and their front offices, something to which any Reds fan can attest contributes directly to the finished product.
This is also the issue with parity in the NFL: whereas certain teams can't monopolize the market on the best players (like in the MLB), the front office still has the most responsibility over the final product. Since running an NFL team is infinitely less complex than fronting a baseball team (though it's still a serious labor), you see less emphasis in this area (see Brown, Mike), and teams suffer accordingly. Not to mention, NFL teams are relatively easier to turn around--a team can go from nothing to everything with a few successful drafts, whereas the MLB requires at least twice that time to see return on drafted players and developed talent. This is why the Pirates have mired in unprecidented professional sports Hell, where many NFL teams have risen and fallen in that same time.
The system does make it hard for the little guys, I'm not arguing that. I just hear the parity in MLB argument every year and small media market teams every year seem to do very well. They can't take the risks that the Yankees do, but they can get creative, build their franchises up and be wildly successful. You just need to have competent ownership.
I guess that's my point. You can have everything equitable in a league and if you have an idiot owner you still are going to be a horrible franchise. Conversely , you can be in one of the smaller markets in professional sports like the Reds are, and have success and a very bright future.
I think Dusty made a mistake in only using Chapman for one inning last night. He clearly was sharper than he looked in SF. I think he is safer to have go a second inning than bringing in Broxton.