Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Wed Sep 27 20:53:10 2006

> > > > Criminy BHL, I know I promised that I wouldn't pick on you anymore and I won't. But I now realize why its so fun to do so. You try to pick fights in you posts by taking such a pompous, know it all attitude. I'll leave it to others to debate your comparison of hitting a stationary object with a foot to hitting a baseball thrown by a pitcher trying to disrupt your timing.
> > >
> > > That is true, but a kicker has to use his leg(instead of bat, which is often harder than a foot) to drive a ball 40 yards (120 feet) and it has to be in the goal posts. Though a hitter has foul territory, you won't lose your job as a hitter if you hit the ball foul. If you miss a kick, Congradulations:You'r unemployed!!!
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > While I agree that both sports differ in what stats each sports considers successful, I believe that you do not emphasize enough the importance of rotational mechanics on both sports. Also remember that what I have just described is also contingent on the kicker or hitter's ability to succeed in crucial moments. I am sure both sports privilege consistent over "flashy" players. By that, I mean that someone who consistently place-kicks accurately 85% of the time or averages one home run every fifteen at bats during a course of a season--but who comes up with game-winning kicks or home runs--will have more probative value than a person who consistently place-kicks accurately 95% of the time, or averages one home run in under ten at bats during the course of season, but fails to perform in the clutch. Rotational mechanics permits such consistency in both cases. When you read my response, Andy, please bear in mind that stats must be deconstructed and compared to a plethora of scenarios to truly be considered meaningful. I therefore stand by my original statement, since, in my former comparison, what is numerically congruous far outweighs what is numerically incongruous among football and baseball.
> >
> > Best,
> > BHL
>
> I think we can establish that rotational forces are better than linear forces are better in most cases, not just sports.Sir Isaac Newton pretty much established that a couple hundred yrs ago.

Hi jima,

My question is simply this: if what you said is true, then why are weight shift enthusiasts continuing to proselytize their type of approach? I doubt it is money, or even pride--I believe that they are thoroughly convinced that convention is the best policy. However, one should look all at unconventional hitters, which include Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Ted Williams, and then question the preceding philosophy outlined above.

BHL