Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Fri Sep 23 18:28:11 2005

> >>> My model has been depicted geometrically. <<<
>
> Hi BHL
>
> I was just wondering, would you say that anyone who advocates hitting the ball to the opposite field could claim they have developed a new “model” as you have with PFO?
>
> Jack Mankin

Hi Jack:

If they design a way whereby all balls can be hit to the shortest field, then yes. Suppose, for example, a right-handed batter plays in a field where the dimensions are 340 down the line to left, but 300 to right. If that batter designs a way whereby the ball can hit to that part of the field consistently, then teaches it to others, they will have created OFO: opposite field orientation.

However, the bat is traveling faster when the pull hitter hits the ball; the dimensions to left and right are usually symmetrial; the left field fence is usually 330 feet, and in some cases, considerably less.

I acknowledge that people have used this method subconsciously; what I want to do is to let individuals know that there is a system whereby it can be used consciously to turn smaller players into consistent home run threats. (Remember, hitting the ball to the farthest fence does one no good.)

Eventually, the philosophy, psychology and geometry are mine. If you go back to March 2004, though, I do cite the sources that I think I had an influence on me in developing this philosophy. I also cite relevant insights in my posts. You are included.

Best Wishes,
Literary Chronicler BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

P.S. If it must be noted, I plan to deconstruct PFO stats soon.