View Full Version : Pre-war "Submariners"?
Archive
08-21-2003, 10:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Nickinvegas</b><p>I was watching B.K. Kim blow yet another save in a key game for Boston tonight and I was wondering:<BR><BR>1)Why did Boston trade Hillenbrand for Kim? A pitcher with a history of blowing key games paired with a team that has the same history!<BR><BR>2)Was there any pre-war pitchers with a side arm or under hand delivery?<BR><BR>Any information would be much appreciated...<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Nick
Archive
08-21-2003, 11:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Carl Mays (New York Giants), 1920. <BR><BR><img src="http://www.cycleback.com/20thcentury1_files/image017.jpg">
Archive
08-22-2003, 02:33 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>If you've ever seen footage of pre-war ball, almost all pitchers threw sidearm to some degree. There were very few "over the top" pitchers. Side arm is less strenuous on the arm, but you generally cannot throw as fast as over the top. This explains in large part why pitchers pitched more often back then and had fewer injuries to their arms. I've seen footage of Mathewson and Johnson, and both were definately NOT throwing over the top.<BR><BR>Jay
Archive
08-22-2003, 06:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>Bill James claims that there's no such thing as clutch hitting - you can either hit or you can't. Now I've got quantifiable proof that he's wrong: the Red Sox left 17 men on base in that game last night out of a possible 27 for a 9-inning game. <b>17</b>!<BR><BR>
Archive
08-22-2003, 07:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>Nick:<BR><BR>1. Because all Red Sox fans should suffer some in August, a lot more in September and occasionally be made miserable in October.<BR><BR>2. I believe sidearm pitchers become so because they have little sucess overhand or have sore shoulders. If they pich for the Sox they are likely sore armed louzy pitchers.<BR><BR>3. I think they can strand 20 before the end of the season - no problem.<BR><BR>4. To make matters worse last night, while the eigth inning debacle was going on, my Comcast high speed access went down and I could not bid on 2 E92's that I wanted.<BR><BR>5. Today's another day and at least in Florida I will not be able to see the game, nevertheless in September I will go to Boston to see a few games at Fenway as I have done every year since 1946.
Archive
08-22-2003, 07:58 AM
Posted By: <b>John(z28jd)</b><p>Everyone who pitched before 1884 threw submarine style because thats all that was allowed <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>and can you tell Bill is a Red Sox fan,poor man im sure they will one of these years to lift the curse of the bambino then its smooth sailing after that
Archive
08-22-2003, 02:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Andy Baran</b><p>1.) The Red Sox are loaded with good hitters (although they may not be "clutch" as Bill pointed out) <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>2.) The Red Sox had NO ONE who could close a game in the Bullpen<BR><BR>3.) Even if Kim only converts 50% of his save opportunities, it is better than the "Closer by Committee" was doing<BR><BR>4.) Kim was arguably the best closer available for trade at the time
Archive
08-22-2003, 03:35 PM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>Walter Johnson was a side winder from the rare footage I have seen of him throwing.
Archive
08-23-2003, 01:58 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>All the footage I've ever seen of him shows him throwing about 3/4 at the most. Same for Mathewson and just about every other pre-war pitcherr I've ever seen footage of.<BR><BR>Jay
Archive
08-23-2003, 05:21 PM
Posted By: <b>TBob</b><p>If you watch the Burns Baseball video, you'll see Johnson unlimbering his arm and whipping the ball sidearm.