Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tim McCarver Claims Climate Change Causes Home Runs;
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 30, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 04/30/2012 11:59:16 AM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Tim McCarver... I can't believe this. I love Tim McCarver. I grew up when Tim McCarver was a catcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. Every year Joe Buck had his golf tournament outside St. Louis for a long time, and I would go to it, and I just loved Tim McCarver. Tim McCarver said something on a Fox broadcast a couple Saturdays ago that just disappoints me. But, again, it's an example of how reasonably intelligent people get caught.

He said that the reason there are more home runs being hit in baseball -- which there aren't by the way. Home run totals are down. What do you think he's gonna say? He's blaming it on thinner air because of global warming. The air is thinner, there is less resistance, and so the balls off the bat are flying farther! The problem is that home run totals are down since the steroid era was kind of gotten control of. Home run totals are down.

It's a disappointing thing.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Tim McCarver. This was Saturday on Fox Sports. It's Major League Baseball, Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Cardinals at Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Joe Buck and Tim McCarver talking about the impact of climate change on home runs and McCarver starts out by saying, "It has not been proven." Now, there's stadium noise in the background. McCarver says, "It's not been proven," and then he says this.

MCCARVER: (stadium noise) I think ultimately it will be proven that the air's thinner now. There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.

BUCK: So that's your inconvenient truth about these things.

MCCARVER: Well, I think they're gonna find that out one of these days. Yes, I do.

RUSH: Tim McCarver. It's just so disappointing. When you lose Tim McCarver... You know, it was just three weeks ago I was speculating here, and I had a call about it. I was speculating here on the program asking whether it would be helpful or not if sports figures entered the political arena because of the influence they have with fans. And I think we've got a partial answer here. As I say, I love Tim McCarver, and he's one of the best at what he does. But this is how insidious this propaganda is. But the fact of the matter is, in the past few years, home run totals have been in a fairly steady decline. From 2000 to 2009, home run totals are down! There aren't more baseballs flying out of the park in the last ten years or 11 years, for whatever reason.

There aren't.

Home run totals are on the decline.

And, of course, it has nothing to do with baseball players being 20% bigger today than they were in years past.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Home run totals in Major League Baseball in the year 2000: 5600 home runs. In 2011: 4500. We're down 1100 home runs per year since the year 2000, and ESPN has a story: "Offense Drops to Two-Decade Low -- If you thought the 2011 season seemed like a throwback, you were right. Offense dropped to a level not seen..." Now, this is runs scored, home runs, everything. But the home run average from this ESPN story, the home run average was down to less than one home run per team, per game, the lowest in 19 years. By the way, if you're just joining us here and wondering, "What the heck are you talking about?" Grab sound bite 22. Tim McCarver on Saturday, in St. Louis, the Brewers and the Cardinals, Tim McCarver.

MCCARVER: (stadium noise) I think ultimately it will be proven that the air's thinner now. There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.

BUCK: So that's your inconvenient truth about these things.

MCCARVER: Well, I think they're gonna find that out one of these days. Yes, I do.

RUSH: How do you... I mean, Tim McCarver worked every year through the steroid era where players weighed on average 20% more than they did when he played back in the sixties and seventies. But home run totals are down. This is how pervasive this is. Tim McCarver's not a dumb guy. You know, I've spoken to Tim McCarver on a number of occasions. I can't say that I know him as a friend, but I saw him at Joe Buck's golf tournament. Global warming is supposed to cause more humidity, which is heavier air. Global warming does not create thinner air. It's just the opposite. By the way, he said climactic in there, meaning climatic. Climactic means apocalyptic. Climactic, a climax. For those of you in Rio Linda, climax -- ha-ha -- could go either way. The end. And he meant to say climatic.

Now, let's go to Algore. Algore, he's responsible for this. Inconvenient truth, all this global warming folderol. Algore was in Amherst, Massachusetts, on Friday at Hampshire College during the inauguration of their new president, a guy named Jonathan Lash, who is a good friend of Algore's. We have two sound bites from Algore.

GORE: Every single professional scientific society in every field related to earth science or climate science says it is an urgent problem that requires urgent attention and must be addressed. Ninety-seven to 98% of all the climate scientists most actively publishing in the world say it is an urgent problem that must be urgently addressed. Now, there's some talk radio show hosts that say it's not. (laughter) It's up to you.

RUSH: He-he-he-he. So here we have these young skulls full of mush, once again being propagandized by this guy, who knows, by the way, that what he's saying isn't true. Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe he's so caught up in this now that he's like Clinton, who believed all of his lies. The talk show hosts against these 97, 98% scientists, and the talk show host is winning, because Algore has to go up there and tell the students that the talk show host is wrong, and there are 97, 98% scientists. And that's not true. By the way, for those of you young people who are new to this program the last six weeks, let me give you what I call a profundity. And this is unarguable. Science does not, cannot be determined by consensus.

Now, I know that the way you've been educated and taught is that consensus is good, consensus is the result of people talking and discussing and comproming. Yes. And compromise, that's good. Because that's people working together. Barney compromises. The Muppets compromise. Big Bird compromises. And so compromise led to consensus on science and global warming. Except for one problem. It specifically is not science if it is established by consensus. Science is not subject to opinion. And this is the problem with global warming.

For those of you new to the program, global warming is a purely political issue. It is used by the left to advance every one of their ideals and beliefs: higher taxes, big government, you being made to feel guilty and responsible for the construction of something for which you now have to pay the price for your redemption, which is higher taxes, bigger government, and simply rolling over and getting out of the way when the global warming crowd comes through town.

But there's this talk show host that for 23 years has been opposing this. So Algore has to go back to the campi all over the country to convince these young students the talk show host doesn't know what he's talking about and claim there's a 97, 98% consensus of scientists. Two plus two equals four not because of consensus was arrived at. You know, I was a troublemaker in school, and I'm sure you people can relate to this. In the fifth grade, I once asked the teacher who was teaching... I forget what it was. History? Her name was Langdon, Miss. Langdon.

I asked, "Miss. Langdon, how do we know that what we know is right?"

She was stumped. "What do you mean?"

"Well, how do we know, for example, that...?" She was big on the ancient Egyptians and the mummies. "How do we know that what we think is right about that is right? How do we know?"

And she didn't have an answer. God love her, she tried but she didn't have an answer.

It's the same thing with global warming. How do you know that what you know is right? How does Algore know that what he knows is right? It's an opinion; it's "consensus." A consensus of scientists agrees that there's global warming? It's a political issue, folks. It's just another of the many tentacles of liberalism that make up the intricately woven web of deceit that is liberalism. You might be interested in knowing that Algore got a "D" in Natural Science when he was at Harvard. And now we know why! In the old days -- and I'm not exaggerating -- people used to get locked up in the loony bin for saying some of the stuff that Algore and the global warmists now not only say, but they teach!

They are teaching some of the most irresponsible, radical, untrue stuff that has ever been taught. The global polar bear population is growing. They are not threatened. The ice shelf is not melting. It's not shrinking any more than normal. But the real question you young people who are new to this program need to ask yourselves is this: "Where did you acquire your arrogance and vanity?" And I'm not trying to be insulting. But my point is this: I've always believed that most people's historical perspective begins the day they were born. Most people believe that whatever happens in their lifetimes is, in many cases, the first time anything has happened. Or certainly it's the worst it's ever been throughout history.

So you, because of that fact -- because of the ability to think that history began when you were born -- are open to the propaganda that whatever the temperature is now is "normal." How do we know that? The earth is how many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years old, whatever the argument is. We don't even know that. Let's say the earth is a hundred thousand years. Just for the sake of discussion, the earth is a hundred thousand years old. How do any of us know that the temperatures in this year or in our lifetime constitute the norm, constitute what it's supposed to be? Maybe it's colder on average around the planet than it, quote, unquote, "should be."

Maybe if there is warming, there's a correction going on.

Maybe it's not a crisis.

Maybe it's not a problem.

The only way they can make you believe that global warming is a crisis requiring emergency procedures, which largely involve you giving up your freedom, is it's incumbent on you being made to believe that what's happening now is normal. "This is the way God intended it, and if it gets a Celsius degree warmer in a hundred years, we've got a problem!" How do we know this? We don't know this. And we can't control it anyway. Have you ever asked yourself, "If global warming is within our power, how do we make it cooler?" We can't. We can't, thus, be responsible for it getting warmer.

We're just stewards here. We're just placeholders on this planet. We have the ability to protect and guard and so forth, but in terms of inventing any of this or causing any of this or correcting it? We can't. We have to adapt, is what we do. We adapt to whatever and so do animals. We have to adapt. And if you fail to adapt, sayonara. But this is all smoke and mirrors. Just remember two things. Ask yourself constantly: "Who wrote that what's now is normal, and anything less or higher or lower than today is a panic? Who wrote that? What kind of thinking is that?"

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I got it wrong. My seventh grade teacher was Fannie Langdon, Miss. Langdon. The fifth grade teacher that I asked, "How do we know that what we know is right?" was Miss Pierce. Seventh grade was Miss. Langdon, who's a big fan of mine to this day (or was). Now, the second thing is, in addition to the silly notion that our arrogance and vanity make us think that everything's normal during our time on earth and that means we're the destroyers... You gotta fight that, folks. We don't destroy anything. We're the builders! The second thing is: There's no such thing as "consensus" in science. It cannot be science if consensus is how it has been arrived at. The earth is round not because 97% of scientists agree. It's because it's not flat.

There's only one reason the earth isn't flat and that is: It's round. It's not because 97 ore 98% of scientists decided to agree on that. (sigh) I love talking to the new young people here, 'cause there's nobody that makes it easier to understand. That's what I do. I make the complex understandable. By the way, from Reuters: "Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power." Don't you just love this? Here they've come up with these windmills which everybody wants when they're not in their neighborhood, including the late Senator Kennedy.

He was a big believer in wind farms, but nowhere near where he lived, 'cause they're noisy and they kill birds, bald eagles and that stuff. You're not supposed see that and you're not supposed to talk about it. Wind farms! Yes, so we don't have to use evil oil or fossil fuels. We can have green energy, new jobs. Problem: "Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming [but] large wind farms have a warming effect on the local climate." So one of the "cures" for global warming has now been discovered to cause it; which, by the way, there isn't any manmade global warming going on. And I say this with ontological certitude. It's arrogance and vanity to suggest that we have the ability to do that.

It's been warmer on this planet before oil was discovered, folks. All of this is absurd.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Entire title: Tim McCarver Claims Climate Change Causes Home Runs; Algore Says "Talk Show Hosts" are Winning Global Warming Debate
1 posted on 04/30/2012 11:59:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tim must have forgotten PV=nRT from high school chemistry.


2 posted on 04/30/2012 12:03:33 PM PDT by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tim must have forgotten PV=nRT from high school chemistry.


3 posted on 04/30/2012 12:04:00 PM PDT by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
... any official sighting of the tornado that sucked Timmy's brains out of his noggin?
4 posted on 04/30/2012 12:05:29 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin: More miles per sound bite than the closest competitor...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

His ignorance of climate is only matched by his ignorance of baseball.


5 posted on 04/30/2012 12:06:45 PM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good grief! McCarver has had his brain finally wander off. He has been getting stranger and stranger over time. His baseball comments rarely make sense anymore.

For someone who played the game it seems that he has lost the ability to do the “color commentary” on a broadcast. His comments do not reflect the reality in front of him or even basic knowledge of the game.

It is sadder and sadder as time goes on.


6 posted on 04/30/2012 12:08:40 PM PDT by Wordkraft (Remember who the Collaborators are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
MCCARVER: There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world,
and I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.

BUCK: So that's your inconvenient truth about these things?

Great response! LOL ...
7 posted on 04/30/2012 12:09:59 PM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tim McCarver is your typical dumb jock who is thought to be ‘intelligent’ because he can speak in complete sentences. Newsflash Timmy. The leading greenhouse gas is water vapor - which would make the air more dense.


8 posted on 04/30/2012 12:10:11 PM PDT by Lou Budvis (Is it 2016 yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m with Rush on being disappointed w/McCarver because I grew up a Cardinals fan, listening to Harry Carey’s radio call on the games. The only thing I can say in defense of McCarver is that at least he has lots of company on being totally misled by those purporting that the “science of global warming” is a settled matter.


9 posted on 04/30/2012 12:10:46 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

I like Buck, I get the impression he leans more conservative, I could be wrong.


10 posted on 04/30/2012 12:11:05 PM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Barry Bonds Claims Climate Change Caused 70 Pound Weight Gain.


11 posted on 04/30/2012 12:11:40 PM PDT by LazloToth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hey, no one ever said you had to be smart to be a good baseball player.


12 posted on 04/30/2012 12:13:11 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

McCarver is a Yankee hater. Whenever he and Buck are calling a Yankee game, I turn down the sound and listen to John Sterling.


13 posted on 04/30/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who worked for Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Yeah...it sucks because I am a huge Steve Carlton fan and he used to be his catcher. Doochbag


14 posted on 04/30/2012 12:13:50 PM PDT by gr8eman (Ron Swanson for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I believe climate change explains eagles at this year’’s masters.

Hah!


15 posted on 04/30/2012 12:14:28 PM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

Too many foul tips to the head!


16 posted on 04/30/2012 12:14:49 PM PDT by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I guess it’s no accident that catcher’s equipment is referred to as the “tools of ignorance.”


17 posted on 04/30/2012 12:15:13 PM PDT by hometoroost (Frodo lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LazloToth

and it made his head gigantic


18 posted on 04/30/2012 12:22:16 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I couldn’t believe it when Fox hired Tim McCarver. He did local Mets games, and was the dumbest piece of sh*t I’ve ever heard open their mouths in a sports box. And yes, I did occasionally have the misfortune of hearing D’ohbermann on ESPN back in the day, and Howard Cossell.

The stuff that would come out of his mouth, like calling Bud Harrellson the most legendary shortstop from New York (Uh, Phil Rizutto?), or Keith Hernandez the best all-round playing first baseman in history (Lou Gehrig?). Ignorant or slow-witted I could handle; McCarver is just willfully stupid.

(Now, if global warming were real, it probably would cause a negligible effect on run scoring, since more runs score in hot weather. A rise in 40 degrees will cause about .2 more runs per game, so a rise of 1 degree would cause .005 runs per game.)


19 posted on 04/30/2012 12:25:27 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias

OK, I’ll bit - how so?


20 posted on 04/30/2012 12:31:50 PM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Too many foul tips to the facemask?


21 posted on 04/30/2012 12:35:59 PM PDT by Hunton Peck (See my FR homepage for a list of businesses that support WI Gov. Scott Walker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
His ignorance of climate is only matched by his ignorance of baseball.

Exactly and that's the real shame here. McCarver is completely clueless about his JOB, his supposed area of expertise. I watch baseball religously and the reason there WAS a home run explosion for some time was one thing - STEROIDS. The game is reverting back to form as steroid use is dropping and almost gone. So why would this idiot even try to explain more HRs when there are far less?
22 posted on 04/30/2012 12:41:17 PM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
No, no, McCarver's right! Y'see, it's like this: Globull Warming has caused more UV rays to hit the earth. The UV rays have weakened the steroid solutions, er, linseed oil, being injected into the buttocks of superstars and they CAN'T hit as many home runs! Y'see, McCarver be a super-genius!
23 posted on 04/30/2012 12:44:19 PM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hey, Timmy: better steroids!


24 posted on 04/30/2012 12:48:41 PM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ve always found that the ball flies farther in humid air; at least in softball.


25 posted on 04/30/2012 1:02:26 PM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember.

Besides the steroid use, which others have mentioned, let's not forget that 50 years ago, Major League Baseball was mostly a northern game, with only Chicago and Atlanta being Home Run Derby parks.

Since then, fences have been brought in, pitchers' mopund heights have changed, bats have improved, balls are springier, DHs have been added to the AL, numerous domed stadiums, and new teams in warm places like Tampa Bay, Miami, Phoenix, Wahington (vs. Montreal) and a park in home run friendly thin-air Denver can also contribute to the explosion of home runs.
26 posted on 04/30/2012 1:02:55 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias

Not disagreeing with you here, but I’m trying to learn. I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one or to have any meaningful expertise whatsoever.

Also a given: man-made global warming is insignificant, and Algore and his ilk are completely full of crap.

Moving forward, I recently read an article that said cars get better gas mileage in warm weather because heat expands the air, making it less dense. The less dense the air, the less friction is created by an object passing through it. The less friction on the object, the less energy required to move the object through the air. Therefore, gas mileage is better in warmer, dryer weather, because the air is less dense.

Applying that to baseball and home runs, would it not follow that, all else being equal, a well-hit baseball would travel farther in warmer weather? A simple experiment could prove this: take a pitching machine capable of throwing a baseball 400+ feet. Take an average of a statistically significant number of throws at a cold location, and do the same with the same or similar machine at a warm location. Calibrate the machines so that they are applying the same force at each location.

Perhaps this has already been done. If someone is aware of a link, I’d love to see it.


27 posted on 04/30/2012 1:21:11 PM PDT by Eccl 10:2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

He was a punk jerk when he was playing and that ‘style’ continued on into his broadcasting career. Now we get the Global warming scam/fraud from this idiot. What a damn clown.


28 posted on 04/30/2012 1:27:04 PM PDT by bobby.223 (Retired high up in the mountains of the American Redoubt and it's a GREAT life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
I grew up a Cardinals fan, listening to Harry Carey’s radio call on the games.

You are officially old if you can remember Harry Carey broadcasting Cardinal baseball.

(I remember too)

29 posted on 04/30/2012 1:37:02 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

I like him. One time when I was a little kid, I approached him and asked him for his autograph. I can’t remember the circumstances, but he was pissed as hell about something and told me to get the hell out of his way. Another time he signed very graciously. I still admired him. Now he sounds like he has alzheimers disease.


30 posted on 04/30/2012 1:46:00 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain

Well, speculation on whether the ball is carrying further seems to be like talking about the weather in baseball.


31 posted on 04/30/2012 1:48:42 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
There is no explosion in the number of homeruns in MLB.

There IS a 20% decline in homeruns and the two leagues are averaging UNDER ONE HR per game.

Batting stats for MLB

Which is almost back to 1993 levels.

This year, there are only 11 teams out of 30 that have hit more HR's than they have played games while two other teams have hit exactly one HR per game played.

In 2011, there were only 6 National League teams and 8 American League teams that hit more HR's than games played.

Meanwhile at Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs, in the Friendly Confines, have hit only 8 HR's in 22 games played.

And Albert Pujols, obviously homesick for St. Louis is homerless after being 3rd in HR's last year with 37.

Overall, the American League is averaging 24 HR's per club after 22 games and the National league is averaging 18 per club after 22 games. All of MLB is averaging 20 HR's per club or .909/HR/game played.

32 posted on 04/30/2012 1:52:22 PM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys=Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

“Applying that to baseball and home runs, would it not follow that, all else being equal, a well-hit baseball would travel farther in warmer weather?”

Yes, friction would be less in warm weather (although I don’t know if the effect would be appreciable - perhaps the pilots out there could tell us how air temperature affects lift).

However, note that in the equation governing the behavior of an ideal gas, there is no variable for CLIMATE - there is only a variable for Temperature.

Thus, in order to test McCarver’s hypothesis, one would need to plot air temperatures for every baseball season in the last 50 years, control for the size and strength of players, the liveliness of the baseballs, and the use of anabolic steroids, etc, etc and do a multivariate analysis to see if there is correlation with any of these variables.

Other variables might be home runs or batting averages with a quantification of how well players took care of themselves: how many home runs would Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth have hit if they had not been out carousing as they did? What would Billy Martin’s batting average have been or Whitey Ford’s ERA if they had not been drunk so much?


33 posted on 04/30/2012 3:53:29 PM PDT by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

see post No. 33


34 posted on 04/30/2012 3:55:49 PM PDT by paterfamilias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias
Yes, friction would be less in warm weather (although I don’t know if the effect would be appreciable - perhaps the pilots out there could tell us how air temperature affects lift).

Baseball stats are very sensitive to weather. Indeed, baseball stats can be used as an accurate barometer.

The primary cause of heightened HR rates is air density. The thinner the air, the less a thrown pitch will break...and the further a batted ball will travel.

Three phenomena create thinner air: P> 1. Temperature -- the hotter, the thinner. Air temperature has a pronounced effect on takeoff roll for airliners, e.g.

2. Altitude -- the higher the park, the more offense it will generate. See mile-high Coors Field vs sea-level Petco.

3. Storm fronts -- are generally preceded by low pressure areas, then followed by high pressure areas. You can sit in the stands at The Ballpark in Arlington (TX) e.g. and, if there is lightning to the Southwest, the ball will start flying out of the park. But, once the storm front passes and the game is re-started, pitchers will be in charge the rest of the way.

35 posted on 04/30/2012 4:05:44 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias

According to Rush today in the post steroid era, we have less home runs in MLB.


36 posted on 04/30/2012 4:08:53 PM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
There is no explosion in the number of homeruns in MLB. There IS a 20% decline in homeruns and the two leagues are averaging UNDER ONE HR per game.

I'm sure you are right; I stopped watching MLB whe interleague play was introduced and the wildcard was added. I was just thinking of all of the factors that could affect HR production.
37 posted on 04/30/2012 7:03:57 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Since my chin matches your screen name, I guess that would be further verification of your pronouncement on being “officially old” with our common recollection of Harry as the radio voice of the Cards.


38 posted on 04/30/2012 7:35:14 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson