Moderator: Jesus H Christ
I have no idea what that means.poptart wrote:Wagon, did you really refer to a female as "this"
and then call others chauvinist pigs in the very
next sentence?
Well, no shit. Based on where her feet are well before releasing the softball, I would imagine it's damn near impossible to make contact against that. Where does she end up once she follows through on her release? Facefucking the catcher???War Wagon wrote:who cares, could you hit this?KC Scott wrote:The only reason womens collegiate team sports exist is prop 9 and the Dads that want to see their daughters play ('sup Wags)
It's just not that interesting to the average male viewer, and you don't even see them pulling any numbers in the female viewer demographic either
No, not one of the chauvinist pigs who has posted in this thread could reach the Mendoza line against the likes of that if given 50 at bats to try. You'd shit your pants.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
smackaholic wrote:First off, it's UConn, no period, one word.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Women's basketball gets more coverage -- and funding -- than market warrants
Published: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 4:00 PM Updated: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 2:16 AM
By DAVID JONES, The Patriot-News
If you haven't yet heard or read recent comments from Connecticut women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma, it could be for a number of different reasons. You might not follow women's basketball. You might not know who Auriemma is. You might just not care.
But Auriemma very apparently thinks you have been prevented from hearing his message. Prevented by us – the evil, women's basketball-hating, mainstream sports media – from caring about his product.
In case you're unaware, the idea is being promoted that Auriemma's team has just broken a record. His UConn women's team won its 89th consecutive game on Tuesday night. The UCLA men's teams of 1971-74 won 88 straight.
This is what Auriemma said a few days ago about the prospect of UCLA's mark being eclipsed. Not that it actually was. But that's the concept being advanced:
“All the women [reporters] are happy as hell and they can't wait to come in here and ask questions. All the guys that loved women's basketball are all excited, and all the miserable bastards that follow men's basketball and don't want us to break the record are all here because they're pissed. That's just the way it is.”
He went farther, suggesting that anyone who doesn't promote women's basketball is necessarily a sexist:
“Because we're breaking a men's record, we've got a lot of people paying attention. If we were breaking a women's record, everybody would go, 'Aren't those girls nice, let's give them two paragraphs in USA Today, you know, give them one line on the bottom of ESPN and then let's send them back where they belong, in the kitchen.'”
Wow. Did he mention someone being miserable?
Come to think of it, y'know, Geno's right. We simply aren't giving credit where it's due nearly often enough in this business. I'll give you a couple of examples.
When the Central Penn Piranha went 19-0 in 2005 and broke the Miami Dolphins' pro football record for consecutive wins in an undefeated championship season, very little was written about it. I can't explain it. It's like media outlets all over the nation just didn't want to acknowledge the achievement for some strange reason.
Similarly, when Joe DiMaggio's 1941 hitting streak finally ended at 56 games, why was everyone so excited? It wasn't a record! The pro baseball record remains intact today. Joe Wilhoit of the Wichita Witches hit in 69 straight games in 1919. Why no one in the media recognizes this I cannot explain. Conspiracy? Collusion? You tell me.
OK, Geno is known as a bit combative on occasion and that's fine. He's a big believer in his sport and has built a program of whom anyone would be proud.
But two things here real quick:
Women's college basketball has about as much in common with the men's college game as picnic Wiffleball has with the World Series. They are independent. They are completely different sports.
Now, does this mean women's basketball should receive lesser opportunity to compete, lesser facilities, lesser training and meals? No, they should be exactly the same, just the way Title IX mandated way back in 1972. When tax dollars are at work in scholastic and college sports, funding should be gender-equal. Girls and women should have the exact same opportunities to compete as men and enjoy all the wonderful physical and emotional benefits such competition provides. It's not just the law, it's the right thing to do.
However, gender-equity laws do not mandate media coverage. Auriemma entered the business realm when he snarkily opened that debate. And it's a track on which women's basketball has no traction.
When we sell this newspaper and website, when networks sell their programming, we are making business decisions. We base what we include in our products upon what consumers want to buy. The moment women's basketball becomes a hot commodity, believe me, we will sell it.
Alas, so far it has not. Why? I can only relate my own opinion here. Personally, I think it has something to do with women's physiques simply not being as explosive. In the sport of basketball, that's a fatal drawback. I really enjoy women's tennis; I think it's superior to the men's game. And I see women's soccer as equally entertaining to the men's version; it's a very good game at the highest level. These sports are about skill and tenacity on a mostly horizontal plane.
Women's basketball? Meh. By and large, it simply does not attract a lot of fans and I understand why. I've often thought of it as magnets on a board. Basketball in its modern form accentuates fast-twitch movement and verticality at which a male physique is simply more naturally adept. Add in teamwork and I think men just play a prettier, more fluid game when it's played it right.
Maybe that won't always be so. This debate of appeal might be different if the women's college game had 50 players who could do the things Maya Moore can do. Right now, it doesn't.
Based on ratings and ticket sales -- the sort of thing that drives media coverage -- I am not alone in this opinion. Women's hoops has its core following like other sports on the fringe of mainstream consciousness that receive relatively meager media coverage – drag racing, volleyball, boxing. But that's all it is -- a fringe sport that is somehow being artificially elevated as the showcase for a cause more than a salable product.
In fact, you could make a compelling case that women's college basketball receives far more attention than its evidenced fan support warrants. When was the last time you saw drag racing results regularly included on ESPN's screen ticker? Women's basketball results are always there.
Why? That's a good question. Very few women's college basketball programs draw crowds of even 1,000 fans per game. When was the last time you heard this mentioned by the evil, women's basketball-hating media?
In fact, for all the rightful grief that wasteful FBS college football programs are receiving lately for participating in an obscene arms race that requires most of their universities to siphon millions from general funds to balance budgets, media outlets never mention the red ink that women's basketball programs bleed on an annual basis. We're talking commensurate amounts to football.
How much? Well, because of transparency demanded by the U.S. Department of Education in seeking enforcement of gender equity, we know exactly how much. Let's look at the Big Ten:
In the last reported fiscal year ending in June, all 11 conference women's basketball programs operated at a deficit of more than $1.4 million each, ranging from the most frugal, Illinois (-$1,456,291), to the most extravagant, Iowa (-$2,463,563).
Third most wasteful was Penn State (-$2,353,600).
Other “non-revenue” college sports simply don't get this sort of budgetary free pass. Even Russ Rose's women's volleyball team which just won its unprecedented fourth consecutive NCAA title, amassed total operating expenses (not including coaches' salaries) in the 2009-10 fiscal year of just under $600,000.
The PSU women's basketball program? It rang up three times as much ($1,801,756) in operating expenses. That figure, incredibly, was almost twice that of the PSU men's basketball program ($972,584) which, thanks to Big Ten televsion revenue, brought in over $4.2 million in profit. The Lady Lions' operating expenses even approached those of a PSU football program ($2,379,763) that brought in over $50 million in profit!
Why? I don't know. That's just the way it is.
Next year's figures should be even more interesting thanks to a 4-day junket to Cancun where the Lady Lions played three games before 3-figure crowds in something called the Caribbean Challenge.
Connecticut women's basketball? Its U.S. Department of Education figures show an exact balance between total expenses and revenues (each $5,650,271). Usually, that's a dead giveaway that funds are being sucked from somewhere else in the university budget to make up a shortfall.
That's right. The most successful program in the sport cannot make a profit. At best, it's just breaking even. Why? Because not enough fans care enough to spend significant money on tickets or watch games on TV so that a lucrative network contract could be signed.
Now, compared to a UConn football program that will have to throw away over $2 million just to buy up unused tickets to the Fiesta Bowl, Auriemma's program must be judged as positively thrifty.
But, remember, we began this examination with the UConn coach's sarcastic appraisal that women's hoops doesn't get the coverage and attention it deserves.
And actually, like most shameless promoters, he's full of crap. At the moment, it's getting way more attention, not to mention funding, than can possibly be rationalized.
That sexist bastard is right.jiminphilly wrote:Pretty decentWomen's basketball gets more coverage -- and funding -- than market warrants
Published: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 4:00 PM Updated: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 2:16 AM
By DAVID JONES, The Patriot-News
If you haven't yet heard or read recent comments from Connecticut women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma, it could be for a number of different reasons. You might not follow women's basketball. You might not know who Auriemma is. You might just not care.
But Auriemma very apparently thinks you have been prevented from hearing his message. Prevented by us – the evil, women's basketball-hating, mainstream sports media – from caring about his product.
In case you're unaware, the idea is being promoted that Auriemma's team has just broken a record. His UConn women's team won its 89th consecutive game on Tuesday night. The UCLA men's teams of 1971-74 won 88 straight.
This is what Auriemma said a few days ago about the prospect of UCLA's mark being eclipsed. Not that it actually was. But that's the concept being advanced:
“All the women [reporters] are happy as hell and they can't wait to come in here and ask questions. All the guys that loved women's basketball are all excited, and all the miserable bastards that follow men's basketball and don't want us to break the record are all here because they're pissed. That's just the way it is.”
He went farther, suggesting that anyone who doesn't promote women's basketball is necessarily a sexist:
“Because we're breaking a men's record, we've got a lot of people paying attention. If we were breaking a women's record, everybody would go, 'Aren't those girls nice, let's give them two paragraphs in USA Today, you know, give them one line on the bottom of ESPN and then let's send them back where they belong, in the kitchen.'”
Wow. Did he mention someone being miserable?
Come to think of it, y'know, Geno's right. We simply aren't giving credit where it's due nearly often enough in this business. I'll give you a couple of examples.
When the Central Penn Piranha went 19-0 in 2005 and broke the Miami Dolphins' pro football record for consecutive wins in an undefeated championship season, very little was written about it. I can't explain it. It's like media outlets all over the nation just didn't want to acknowledge the achievement for some strange reason.
Similarly, when Joe DiMaggio's 1941 hitting streak finally ended at 56 games, why was everyone so excited? It wasn't a record! The pro baseball record remains intact today. Joe Wilhoit of the Wichita Witches hit in 69 straight games in 1919. Why no one in the media recognizes this I cannot explain. Conspiracy? Collusion? You tell me.
OK, Geno is known as a bit combative on occasion and that's fine. He's a big believer in his sport and has built a program of whom anyone would be proud.
But two things here real quick:
Women's college basketball has about as much in common with the men's college game as picnic Wiffleball has with the World Series. They are independent. They are completely different sports.
Now, does this mean women's basketball should receive lesser opportunity to compete, lesser facilities, lesser training and meals? No, they should be exactly the same, just the way Title IX mandated way back in 1972. When tax dollars are at work in scholastic and college sports, funding should be gender-equal. Girls and women should have the exact same opportunities to compete as men and enjoy all the wonderful physical and emotional benefits such competition provides. It's not just the law, it's the right thing to do.
However, gender-equity laws do not mandate media coverage. Auriemma entered the business realm when he snarkily opened that debate. And it's a track on which women's basketball has no traction.
When we sell this newspaper and website, when networks sell their programming, we are making business decisions. We base what we include in our products upon what consumers want to buy. The moment women's basketball becomes a hot commodity, believe me, we will sell it.
Alas, so far it has not. Why? I can only relate my own opinion here. Personally, I think it has something to do with women's physiques simply not being as explosive. In the sport of basketball, that's a fatal drawback. I really enjoy women's tennis; I think it's superior to the men's game. And I see women's soccer as equally entertaining to the men's version; it's a very good game at the highest level. These sports are about skill and tenacity on a mostly horizontal plane.
Women's basketball? Meh. By and large, it simply does not attract a lot of fans and I understand why. I've often thought of it as magnets on a board. Basketball in its modern form accentuates fast-twitch movement and verticality at which a male physique is simply more naturally adept. Add in teamwork and I think men just play a prettier, more fluid game when it's played it right.
Maybe that won't always be so. This debate of appeal might be different if the women's college game had 50 players who could do the things Maya Moore can do. Right now, it doesn't.
Based on ratings and ticket sales -- the sort of thing that drives media coverage -- I am not alone in this opinion. Women's hoops has its core following like other sports on the fringe of mainstream consciousness that receive relatively meager media coverage – drag racing, volleyball, boxing. But that's all it is -- a fringe sport that is somehow being artificially elevated as the showcase for a cause more than a salable product.
In fact, you could make a compelling case that women's college basketball receives far more attention than its evidenced fan support warrants. When was the last time you saw drag racing results regularly included on ESPN's screen ticker? Women's basketball results are always there.
Why? That's a good question. Very few women's college basketball programs draw crowds of even 1,000 fans per game. When was the last time you heard this mentioned by the evil, women's basketball-hating media?
In fact, for all the rightful grief that wasteful FBS college football programs are receiving lately for participating in an obscene arms race that requires most of their universities to siphon millions from general funds to balance budgets, media outlets never mention the red ink that women's basketball programs bleed on an annual basis. We're talking commensurate amounts to football.
How much? Well, because of transparency demanded by the U.S. Department of Education in seeking enforcement of gender equity, we know exactly how much. Let's look at the Big Ten:
In the last reported fiscal year ending in June, all 11 conference women's basketball programs operated at a deficit of more than $1.4 million each, ranging from the most frugal, Illinois (-$1,456,291), to the most extravagant, Iowa (-$2,463,563).
Third most wasteful was Penn State (-$2,353,600).
Other “non-revenue” college sports simply don't get this sort of budgetary free pass. Even Russ Rose's women's volleyball team which just won its unprecedented fourth consecutive NCAA title, amassed total operating expenses (not including coaches' salaries) in the 2009-10 fiscal year of just under $600,000.
The PSU women's basketball program? It rang up three times as much ($1,801,756) in operating expenses. That figure, incredibly, was almost twice that of the PSU men's basketball program ($972,584) which, thanks to Big Ten televsion revenue, brought in over $4.2 million in profit. The Lady Lions' operating expenses even approached those of a PSU football program ($2,379,763) that brought in over $50 million in profit!
Why? I don't know. That's just the way it is.
Next year's figures should be even more interesting thanks to a 4-day junket to Cancun where the Lady Lions played three games before 3-figure crowds in something called the Caribbean Challenge.
Connecticut women's basketball? Its U.S. Department of Education figures show an exact balance between total expenses and revenues (each $5,650,271). Usually, that's a dead giveaway that funds are being sucked from somewhere else in the university budget to make up a shortfall.
That's right. The most successful program in the sport cannot make a profit. At best, it's just breaking even. Why? Because not enough fans care enough to spend significant money on tickets or watch games on TV so that a lucrative network contract could be signed.
Now, compared to a UConn football program that will have to throw away over $2 million just to buy up unused tickets to the Fiesta Bowl, Auriemma's program must be judged as positively thrifty.
But, remember, we began this examination with the UConn coach's sarcastic appraisal that women's hoops doesn't get the coverage and attention it deserves.
And actually, like most shameless promoters, he's full of crap. At the moment, it's getting way more attention, not to mention funding, than can possibly be rationalized.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
The fast pitch players would fare better than MLB'ers trying to hit Finch or Osterman or whomever the best softball pitcher is now a days. The relative speed is the same and with Lee, you have to worry about 3-4 pitches, breaking essentially 1-2 ways (down and down and in if you are a right handed hitter). With the softball pitcher, their are 4-5 different pitches with many more variations on how the ball can break. Cliff Lee, no matter how good, can't make his ball rise.Mace wrote: As for Wags and his softball pitcher......you gotta be kidding me. I can guarantee you that Jeter would be able to hit off that gal in 50 ABs, as would anyone else who has played the game. What would be more interesting, imo, is to see how many of the games greatest softball hitters could get a bat on Cliff Lee's stuff in 50 ABs.
I'm not being sexist.....just a realist.
the better question would be how does jeter do against the best female hardball picher in the world throwing from 60 ft away on a regulation mound. My guess is he crushes her blistering 79 mph heat.Killian wrote:The fast pitch players would fare better than MLB'ers trying to hit Finch or Osterman or whomever the best softball pitcher is now a days. The relative speed is the same and with Lee, you have to worry about 3-4 pitches, breaking essentially 1-2 ways (down and down and in if you are a right handed hitter). With the softball pitcher, their are 4-5 different pitches with many more variations on how the ball can break. Cliff Lee, no matter how good, can't make his ball rise.Mace wrote: As for Wags and his softball pitcher......you gotta be kidding me. I can guarantee you that Jeter would be able to hit off that gal in 50 ABs, as would anyone else who has played the game. What would be more interesting, imo, is to see how many of the games greatest softball hitters could get a bat on Cliff Lee's stuff in 50 ABs.
I'm not being sexist.....just a realist.
So 50 swings, no warm ups to get use to the differences, I would put my money on the fast pitch player every time.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
And I would strongly disagree. He didn't say 50 swings, he said 50 ABs...more than enough pitches to make the adjustment. I've played both games and, while it's definitely an adjustment to go from baseball to softball, it's easier to hit a softball than a baseball. Softball players even struggle trying to swing the heavier bat. I've even experiemented with this by having girls hit off a baseball pitching machine and it was an epic fail, even for the very best hitter on the team who is now playing Div. I softball at a Big 10 school.Killian wrote:The fast pitch players would fare better than MLB'ers trying to hit Finch or Osterman or whomever the best softball pitcher is now a days. The relative speed is the same and with Lee, you have to worry about 3-4 pitches, breaking essentially 1-2 ways (down and down and in if you are a right handed hitter). With the softball pitcher, their are 4-5 different pitches with many more variations on how the ball can break. Cliff Lee, no matter how good, can't make his ball rise.Mace wrote: As for Wags and his softball pitcher......you gotta be kidding me. I can guarantee you that Jeter would be able to hit off that gal in 50 ABs, as would anyone else who has played the game. What would be more interesting, imo, is to see how many of the games greatest softball hitters could get a bat on Cliff Lee's stuff in 50 ABs.
I'm not being sexist.....just a realist.
So 50 swings, no warm ups to get use to the differences, I would put my money on the fast pitch player every time.
I semi seriously considered trying this at one point in my coaching career where we had a softball pitcher who threw in the low 70's....and possibly using her as a relief pitcher/closer. We never tried it but I think it might be a huge adjustment trying to throw off a mound with a much smaller ball....not to mention holding runners on base.smackaholic wrote:the better question would be how does jeter do against the best female hardball picher in the world throwing from 60 ft away on a regulation mound. My guess is he crushes her blistering 79 mph heat.Killian wrote:The fast pitch players would fare better than MLB'ers trying to hit Finch or Osterman or whomever the best softball pitcher is now a days. The relative speed is the same and with Lee, you have to worry about 3-4 pitches, breaking essentially 1-2 ways (down and down and in if you are a right handed hitter). With the softball pitcher, their are 4-5 different pitches with many more variations on how the ball can break. Cliff Lee, no matter how good, can't make his ball rise.Mace wrote: As for Wags and his softball pitcher......you gotta be kidding me. I can guarantee you that Jeter would be able to hit off that gal in 50 ABs, as would anyone else who has played the game. What would be more interesting, imo, is to see how many of the games greatest softball hitters could get a bat on Cliff Lee's stuff in 50 ABs.
I'm not being sexist.....just a realist.
So 50 swings, no warm ups to get use to the differences, I would put my money on the fast pitch player every time.
if softball pitching is so tough to hit, why haven't we seen someone in the bigs using softball pitching mechanics? My guess is that they would be lit the fukk up or simply don't have the needed control from 60 ft.
Didn't Iowa girls play 3-on-3 back then? Denise Long at 67 ppg rings a bell.Mace wrote:The state of Iowa has always supported female sports and was a national leader back in the day for girl's basketball. My high school's girl's basketball team was a state tournament caliber team when I was a sophomore playing on the soph team and our girl's coach thought it might be good preparation for a tournament run to scrimmage the boy's sophs, so we did, and we surprised ourselves by totally embarrassing the girls with an asskicking. I realized then that they may play the same game as the boys
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
No, I didn't. I saw the Willie Mays/Eddie Feigner exhibition and, if given 50 ABs against Feigner, I'd bet on Mays too. If the transition from softball to baseball was so easy, there'd be women making millions as a DH in the American League. I don't see that happening.....because they're not as good with a bat..period. The only real adjustment a baseball player would have to make in their swing would be to shorten it up and have a compact swing. A pitcher changing speeds is what makes hitting difficult in both games, not just softball. A major league hitter would make the adjustment with a little practice much faster and more successfully than a softball player trying to make the adjustment to baseball. Personally, I didn't find the adjustment to softball to be that difficult, even after coming off a college baseball season and playing summer softball. That's just for me.....and I suspect that Willie Mays or Derek Jeter would make the adjustment just a little faster than I did if given the opportunity.Killian wrote:Willie Mays thought the same thing after Eddie Feigner struck him out. He said to give him some time to adjust to the speed and the distance; he would be able to hit it. So Feigner pitched to him from second base, and struck him out. Between his legs.
I’ve played both as well, and the softball was much more difficult to hit. More variations in speed and movement led to a lot more guessing. Maybe the jump up in weight for a softball player would be difficult, but I would still put my money on the softball player. Give her time to get use to the weight of the bat, and she’s still dealing with fewer variables than the MLB hitter.
Did you have the best hitter on the guys team take some swings off the fast pitch pitcher?
Yep, 3-on-3 at each end of the court. If you were a guard, you never shot the ball, and the forwards on the other end of the court were the only ones to shoot the ball. It was a half court game, players were allowed only 2 dribbles, and you couldn't make a steal when a player was dribbling the ball, or had possession of the ball, unless they were in the lane. It was a very sexist game that conceded that the girls had less athletic ability than the boys, and it didn't change to the current 5-on-5 until some parents filed lawsuits claiming that the game was costing their daughters college basketball scholarships.....which it probably did.....even though there were a large number of girls who played the 6 player game who went on to successful college careers. The first few years of 5-on-5 in Iowa was totally unwatchable while the girls were learning to dribble the ball and play full court.....not to mention watching the former "guards" trying to shoot a basketball. It was a horrible thing to watch.....far more turnovers than points.Goober McTuber wrote:Didn't Iowa girls play 3-on-3 back then? Denise Long at 67 ppg rings a bell.Mace wrote:The state of Iowa has always supported female sports and was a national leader back in the day for girl's basketball. My high school's girl's basketball team was a state tournament caliber team when I was a sophomore playing on the soph team and our girl's coach thought it might be good preparation for a tournament run to scrimmage the boy's sophs, so we did, and we surprised ourselves by totally embarrassing the girls with an asskicking. I realized then that they may play the same game as the boys
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
She was NOT a pretty woman.Mace wrote:Another thing about Denise Long....
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
You don't think a WNBA team would beat a "decent" boys high school team? You are a fucking moron.smackaholic wrote:Where do you suppose the top of the women's bball foodchain, say UConn or maybe even a WNBA team ranks if put against men.
Do they beat a decent boys HS team?
I doubt it.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
not pretty and talented women ballers seem to go together more often than not. There is the occasional exception, but not many.Goober McTuber wrote:She was NOT a pretty woman.Mace wrote:Another thing about Denise Long....
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
not pretty and talented women ballers seem to go together more often than not. There is the occasional exception, but not many.Goober McTuber wrote:She was NOT a pretty woman.Mace wrote:Another thing about Denise Long....
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Yes, the fact they are fucking professionals, azzhat. You're talking about some Average Joe slapdick boys basketball team from Nowheresville, America vs professional basketball players. The boys might be able to muscle their way to a few boards, but their skills, experience, and fundamentals in the game of basketball would be far inferior to that of an average WNBA team.smackaholic wrote:DO you have anything other than "your a fukking moron" to back up your side of the arguement?
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
No, I'm not kidding.Mace wrote: As for Wags and his softball pitcher......you gotta be kidding me. I can guarantee you that Jeter would be able to hit off that gal in 50 ABs, as would anyone else who has played the game.
As nasty as Jenny Finch was, Cat Ostermann is even nastier.To boost ratings, This Week in Baseball signed Finch as a co-host.[26] In a segment called the Jennie Challenge, Finch pitches to major league baseball players and often strikes them out.[26] In softball, the mound is closer to the home plate than in Major League Baseball, and Finch's pitches are the equivalent of a 98 mph pitch.[26] "Some big-timers refuse to face her," Cal Ripken, Jr. says. "Many feel it could be embarrassing."[26] In an interview with ESPN, Finch explained "I was throwing them mostly rise balls and change-ups. They've never seen a pitch like that, you know? With the closer distance from the mound, I think it really surprises them how fast the pitch gets there. And especially with the rise -- when they're used to that over-the-top release point -- there is nothing else like it. The ball movement throws them off."[27]
In the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game, Finch struck out Albert Pujols, Mike Piazza and Brian Giles.[28] "I never touched a pitch," said Giles.[14] "Her fastball was the fastest thing I've ever seen, from that distance. It rises and cuts at the same time."[14]
Probably true.Dinsdale wrote:Not quite the same as a high school team, but I'm guessing that a very good high school team with a couple of stars would smoke any WNBA team.
I said Jeter, but no, Pujols couldn't get 10 hits in 50 at bats against Finch either... or a slew of others.Mace wrote:You don't think Pujols could hit .200 against Finch?
poptart wrote:The speed and strength of males dwarfs that of females.
Like I said...whatever. :roll:War Wagon wrote:I said Jeter, but no, Pujols couldn't get 10 hits in 50 at bats against Finch either... or a slew of others.Mace wrote:You don't think Pujols could hit .200 against Finch?
Yeah ....that is why they play MLB, and not some back lot beer drinking exhibition softball league, where some bi curious college softball player is going to get the ball past Pujols, Adrian Gonzales, Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard or any of the other 2000 or so MLB players who would take that bitch yard every time they came to the plate. Pancake that fucking ball right over her head.Mace wrote:Like I said...whatever. :roll:War Wagon wrote:I said Jeter, but no, Pujols couldn't get 10 hits in 50 at bats against Finch either... or a slew of others.Mace wrote:You don't think Pujols could hit .200 against Finch?
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
That's a nice little slice of IKYABWAI. The thread or subject doesn't matter, you can't stop yourself from defecating your oh-so important opinion all over it, and act as if your thought should be the last word. Learn to separate fact from opinion, butthole.smackaholic wrote:you seem moer like the "I got it all figured out" type.
So it went from decent to very good?I will go ahead and say that I believe a very good high school boys team would run them straight out of the gym.
