| Lange's Twitter |
Thu, 28 June 2012 12:34  |
 AndrewL
Messages: 2240
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
OK, so I am pretty anti-social and much to my wife's surprise I've managed to survive the last half decade without a Facebook page. I did however create a Twitter account a few months back and used it sparingly but I'm starting to use it more and have actually found it to be somewhat enjoyable. So if any of you Twitter (?), I'm offering you the option to "follow" me. Information it will include: bets, betting info, betting updates, Sportsmemo stuff, links, the occasional indie rock/running/fishing/copenhagen chit-chat, and updates on how hard my 6 year old threw in his recent bullpen session.
@LangeSportsmemo
https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
[Updated on: Thu, 28 June 2012 12:35]
Follow me https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Fri, 29 June 2012 08:27  |
AndrewL
Messages: 2240
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
Pretty much any lefty over 6-5 who can hit 85 on the gun will get drafted, no? Meaningless though when he comes to me and says he's quitting baseball for lacrosse.
Follow me https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Mon, 02 July 2012 14:01 |
AndrewL
Messages: 2240
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
It is theory that I have tried to figure out myself but haven't been able to. A couple of theories -
- The ability to all but stop the run game I think is important. Even without a good move, much easier to steal bases on righties.
- I also think -- and this is especially true at lower levels -- the lack of familiarity for batters. Even at the MLB level, teams can go a week or more without seeing a left-handed starting pitcher. And a lot of the lefty specialists you spoke of are primarily in there for L vs L.
- Considering the ratio of righty/lefty among the general population and then seeing that 11 of the top 25 ERA's among starting pitchers coming from the left side (despite there still be way more righties), it is hard to argue with the results, no matter of illogical they may seem.
- And having played college baseball, I got a first hand look of how the system works. I was 6-7, right-handed and put up good results and threw in the high 80s yet was just another mediocre righty in the eyes of the scouts -- a fair assessment -- and was out of baseball the day after my last collegiate game. We had one lefty who was a first round pick, another who didn't even start go in the 16th round, and another was featured in Moneyball.
Follow me https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Tue, 03 July 2012 06:30 |
AndrewL
Messages: 2240
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
I totally agree that as a right-handed hitter, you can pick up the ball better when it comes from a lefty -- but, how many HS/College lefties go out of their way to hide the ball, have a unique arm slot (Hi Chris Sale!), throw a cutter and change-up like then do at the MLB level?
My kid just turned 6 -- we're doing nothing more than playing catch and BP at the park at this point. My goal is for him to not HATE baseball like so many kids do nowadays because it isn't as action-packed as football and basketball. Oh, and he's 4-2 not 6-5.
Follow me https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Tue, 03 July 2012 07:46 |
Iceman
Messages: 520
Registered: March 2011 |
Member |
|
|
In my on and off again six year college career (student only, not athletics) I coached elementary basketball for extra money, etc....
Being the ultra competitive person I was, I watched closely what I felt made a kid go from good to great from age 8 to 18.
During this time I came away with two theories on if a kid had a future as a star high school athlete which in turn led to college careers, etc....
1. The big difference is when a kid starts to get taller than 6 foot 2 or more, this is usually not only when the scouts start looking closer but also this height advantage means everything on the court/field as every suburban school has athletic kids who are 6 foot tall playing quarterback/running back/ point guard. etc.... The special ones are at least 6-2 or more. The key here is usually HOW TALL IS THE KID'S MOTHER? Now if the kid has a 6-7 dad than sure he will be tall but generally speaking the taller the mom over 5-7 the better. A 5-7 mom is needed for a kid to be 6-2 and if you find a mom 5-4, most likely kid won't be 6-0 when he graduates. Not saying this rule is etched in stone but it's usually it was a good indicator when a kid is young if he will be tall or not.
2. This other factor was huge 15-20 years ago but the dates have changed as more parents do this nowadays: Make sure your kid is one of the oldest in his class. Back when I was in school the first set of 18 year olds in my senior year turned 18 in the late fall and early winter. In fact I was a summer baby meaning I was 17 years old my entire senior year and so I graduated just 17. When I coached an all-star team the oldest kids were usually always the best from their grades. You would think a kid being just 7 months older than another one isn't important but it means everything when these kids have only been on earth 120 months (almost 10 years old). This usually allows for a kid to be good in a sport, which keeps him interested and playing for a long time, gets them elected to all-star games, gets better coaching, tough competition, etc.... Nowadays I have heard its almost unheard of for kids to have summer birthdays and graduate 17 years old like everyone did back when I graduated high school (1989). Looking back now I cant even imagine if I started a school year later in and was 18 my whole senior year, it would have changed my athletic accomplishments completely which would have gave me more confidence growing up, etc... Can you imagine now how much better you would have been playing sports and going to school with the class below you. My best friend growing up broke the all-time scoring record at our high school and he was the oldest kid in his senior class that hadn't been held back.
You want your kid to turn 6 early in his kindagarten year of school or better yet be 6 when they start. Heck if and when that day comes for me as a parent, my kid if born in the right months will turn 19 late in their senior year.
In my opinion age is the number one thing in youth sports. You would be shocked how important a role it plays in a childs development but believe me it does.
Okay back to capping, LOL.
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Tue, 03 July 2012 08:24 |
AndrewL
Messages: 2240
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
I disagree a little bit on the age thing. My son just finished kindergarten and was by far one of the youngest in the class due to the popularity of holding kids back. He'll graduate HS at 17 just like you and I did and I agree that at a young age you see huge differences in athletic ability, coordination, etc. from the kids 6-12 months older. But at some point the playing field becomes level and often time tilts the other way. I was 5-11 my sophomore year and looked like a 10 year old. By senior year I was 6-5 and grew another two inches in college. For basketball it was a blessing because rather than be one of those kids who by default gets thrown in as a post player because at the time he's the biggest and strongest, I was a perimeter player -- the only position I was logically going to play in college. Those guys playing the post were 6-2, 6-3, the first to get their driver's licenses, done growing and had already reached their peak physically before even graduating high school. 6-2 white post players aren't playing college basketball. Heck, 6-2 white guards are up against it these days. In baseball, it is all about projection and a 17 year old who has yet to grow into his body is way more attractive to a scout than a 19 year old who throws harder but has already reached his ceiling. And yes, I do realize that all of this talk is going to backfire, and my son will be the captain of the choir.
Follow me https://twitter.com/LangeSportsmemo
|
|
|
| Re: Lange's Twitter |
Tue, 03 July 2012 09:00 |
TarHeel
Messages: 1914
Registered: February 2012 |
Member |
|
|
If you've ever read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, there is an entire chapter devoted to the disproportionate number of professional hockey players born in the first three months of the year. It's a very interesting case study of the age advantage in sports, well worth the read. I tried to find the chapter online to post some segments, but I could only find short summaries:
Outliers is at once Gladwell’s least and most ambitious book. Unlike The Tipping Point and Blink, which took their counterintuitiveness to extremes, the conventional wisdom Gladwell seeks to demolish in Outliers isn’t even really CW anymore. Is there anyone who still believes that “success is exclusively a matter of individual merit,” which is how Gladwell describes his straw man? And yet, as Gladwell examines all the things other than individual merit—the “hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies”—that produce hockey stars and software billionaires and math geniuses, he builds a brief for a massive reorganization of social structures and institutions that will give people who don’t have those advantages and opportunities and legacies an equal shot at success.
Consider, for instance, those hockey stars. Relying on the work of a Canadian psychologist who noticed that a disproportionate number of elite hockey players in his country were born in the first half of the year, Gladwell explains what academics call the relative-age effect, by which an initial advantage attributable to age gets turned into a more profound advantage over time. Because Canada’s eligibility cutoff for junior hockey is January 1, Gladwell writes, “a boy who turns 10 on January 2, then, could be playing alongside someone who doesn’t turn 10 until the end of the year.” You can guess at that age, when the differences in physical maturity are so great, which one of those kids is going to make the league all-star team. Once on that all-star team, the January 2 kid starts practicing more, getting better coaching, and playing against tougher competition—so much so that by the time he’s, say, 14, he’s not just older than the kid with the December 30 birthday, he’s better. The solution? Double the number of junior hockey leagues—some for kids born in the first half of the year, others for kids born in the second half. Or, to apply the principle to something a bit more consequential (to non-Canadians, at least), Gladwell suggests that elementary and middle schools put students with January through April birthdays in one class, the May through August birthdays in another, and those with September through December in a third, in order “to level the playing field for those who—through no fault of their own—have been dealt a big disadvantage.”
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
User CP
