May 28, 200322 yr The Wrigley Field pitching mound was lowered by one-half inch before the homestand, after a measurement by the league. "To the best of my knowledge, it was too high," Baker said. "I think they went all over the league and did it. I wish they would tell somebody. ... "The mounds are different all over the league. Some look like a molehill. Some look like Mt. Everest. You see it all over. When I was in Dodger Stadium, our mound looked like it was high as heck. You aren't doing anything illegal intentionally." Kerry Wood said it was no big deal. "They took some of the slope out," Wood said. "It's not that big of an issue. It's not any significant problem."
May 28, 200322 yr "They took some of the slope out," Wood said. "It's not that big of an issue. It's not any significant problem." Sure fooled us the way the Trib layed it on yesterday!
May 28, 200322 yr Author So the peckerheads had to cheat to win. Figures. Why didn't we think of that? Might tell you why Matt Clement has gone from incredible to edible very quickly...
May 28, 200322 yr they were talkin about the mound thing on espn radio yesterda.... the mound is supposed to be 10 inches high at the rubber and slope an inch for each foot down... alot of the scrub pitchers were complaining about the mound in pittsburgh being too flat............as long as the rubber is 10 inches higher than the field itself then it doesnt matter how they slope it down as long as it goes an inch for each foot.....
May 28, 200322 yr Author they were talkin about the mound thing on espn radio yesterda.... the mound is supposed to be 10 inches high at the rubber and slope an inch for each foot down... alot of the scrub pitchers were complaining about the mound in pittsburgh being too flat............as long as the rubber is 10 inches higher than the field itself then it doesnt matter how they slope it down as long as it goes an inch for each foot..... When they lowered the mound in 1970 how tall was it before? 12"?
May 28, 200322 yr Author i believe it was 15 inches before and didnt they drop it around 68 or 69??????? Didn't Bob Gibson have his 1.12 era in 1968? It was after that. I was thinking 1970 but I could be wrong...
May 28, 200322 yr well i could have the years wrong too thats why i put the?????????? lol......but i think it was in 1969......damn it now i have to go look it up .......geez us.........lol
May 28, 200322 yr "They took some of the slope out. It's not that big of an issue. It's not any significant problem." Those same words were muttered at the beginning of the Vietnam war, too!
May 28, 200322 yr "They took some of the slope out. It's not that big of an issue. It's not any significant problem." Those same words were muttered at the beginning of the Vietnam war, too! i dont get the connection here...........cubs pitchers and the vietnam war????
May 28, 200322 yr "They took some of the slope out. It's not that big of an issue. It's not any significant problem." Those same words were muttered at the beginning of the Vietnam war, too! i dont get the connection here...........cubs pitchers and the vietnam war???? It has to do with the way you use the word 'slope.'
May 28, 200322 yr Author http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/sp...all/print.phtml Here is the answer to the mound question. Lowered Mound In '69, Major League Baseball also lowered the pitcher's mound from 15 in. to 10 in. The higher you can get on the mound and look down on the hitter, the more leverage you have and the more that ball is coming from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. That makes it more difficult to hit the ball squarely compared to pitches coming in on a flat plane. Again, another advantage for the hitter.
May 28, 200322 yr ahhh, ok got ya....another bigot added to the boards....wonderful..... with you on that - oh for the day we can avoid derogatory names for everyone -
May 28, 200322 yr Author well that saves me alot of time ... thanks....where did ya find it......... I just did a google search on it. I put a link to the full story above it.
May 28, 200322 yr oh for the day we can avoid derogatory names for everyone - ya know cw some people didnt get what i said im glad you did though...i thought for a minute here i was missing something... i still didnt get what the connection was unless to be making a slam on a people.... sorry dont see the link just the quote part... but thanks anyhow........you did good...........
May 28, 200322 yr i'm not a bigoted person. if i was a racist or a bigot, i could have spewed a bunch of crap but that is pointless to do, b/c this is not a forum for that, and anyone who knows anything about life can tell you living w/blinders on is a sad way to live. what i was trying to get at was that i was trying to demonstrate that it may not be that big of a deal in the beginning, but over time it can be proven differently.
May 28, 200322 yr what i was trying to get at was that i was trying to demonstrate that it may not be that big of a deal in the beginning, but over time it can be proven differently. and thats exactly how it came out too.........just how you wanted it to.....
May 28, 200322 yr i was referring to the changing of the mound to decrease slope, at first it may not mean much, but it can change over time.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.