Kevin Gausman believes the curve is his third pitch

[Frobby]

Are you seriously that naive, or are you just trolling?

Team guides are never recommended to be used as validation of truth.

Well, the one team guide I looked at contradicts what he is saying, as do the baseball cards I've looked at. It's not like these things are hard to find on the internet.

[Mizerooskie]

Is it fair to say that Jim Palmer was a 6'4" caliber pitcher?

[Redskins Rick]

Well, the one team guide I looked at contradicts what he is saying, as do the baseball cards I've looked at. It's not like these things are hard to find on the internet.

I remember Mugsy Boques, and his college guide had him, no where, near his actual 5'3" height.

[OFFNY]

When I was 10-15 years old from 65-70 I lived, breathed, ate, slept, everything related to the Orioles and baseball. I probably read my yearbooks and looked at my baseball cards at least several times a week during the season. So yeah that stuff sort of sticks with you. Much, much more so than the years when the Orioles sank until the late 90's and and beginning shortly after Buck took over.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Bwah hah hah hah anybody knows that Jim Palmer was 6'4" when he pitched!!!! He may be 6'3" now but that would only be due to normal shrinkage due to the aging process as he is 70 years old!! This is the most hilarious use of obviously wrong stats I have ever seen. Go back and look at his baseball cards Einstein , do you think people back the didn't know how to measure height proplerly? I would trust those measurements more than anything generated by people with weren't even around when he pitched and totally clueless!!!! Ha ha ha I just can't stop laughing and laughing - just hilarious!!!

You are treading on very thin ice on this one. You said: "Go back and look at his baseball cards Einstein." I did (see post #427), and although I didn't look at every single one, of the four I looked at, three list him at 6'3" and one lists him at 6'3-1/2".

The Orioles' media guides are available on line and I took a peak at the 1966 one and it lists Palmer at 6'3". http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/fan_forum/media_guides.jsp?loc=1966 (see pp. 23-24) I haven't checked the others, but you should feel free to do so.

So here's the long and short of it: without bothering to check, you scoffed at the fact that Baseball-Reference lists Palmer at 6'3" as though that was the most ridiculous thing in the world. In fact, there are plenty of baseball cards and media guides from the time that list him at 6'3". So at the very minimum, it is certainly not ridiculous for BB-ref to list him at 6'3".

Now I am waiting for you to produce one shred of evidence that he is listed at 6'4" somewhere. Anywhere. Let's see it.

I found 5 of them so far, and all of them list Palmer at 6'3".

The one that you posted from 1966, and 4 others from 1967, 1968, 1975, and 1981:

1966:

1967:

1968:

1975:

1981:

[Il BuonO]

I found 5 of them so far, and all of them list Palmer at 6'3".

The one that you posted from 1966, and 4 others from 1967, 1968, 1975, and 1981:

1966:

1967:

1968:

1975:

1981:

Pfft, doesn't prove anything. He remembers....

He also likely walked 20 miles to and from school each day.

[Redskins Rick]

I found 5 of them so far, and all of them list Palmer at 6'3".

The one that you posted from 1966, and 4 others from 1967, 1968, 1975, and 1981:

1966:

1967:

1968:

1975:

1981:

Good Post!

[Beef Supreme]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Bwah hah hah hah anybody knows that Jim Palmer was 6'4" when he pitched!!!! He may be 6'3" now but that would only be due to normal shrinkage due to the aging process as he is 70 years old!! This is the most hilarious use of obviously wrong stats I have ever seen. Go back and look at his baseball cards Einstein , do you think people back the didn't know how to measure height proplerly? I would trust those measurements more than anything generated by people with weren't even around when he pitched and totally clueless!!!! Ha ha ha I just can't stop laughing and laughing - just hilarious!!!

I have never, ever, heard Palmer's height reported at 6'4". Never. Only 6'3".

The only thing I found hilarious was the "due to" error used consecutively above. Now that's funny stuff.

[Redskins Rick]

I have never, ever, heard Palmer's height reported at 6'4". Never. Only 6'3".

The only thing I found hilarious was the "due to" error used consecutively above. Now that's funny stuff.

Funny stuff when a certain poster calls other clueless, that is priceless.

[Number5]

I found 5 of them so far, and all of them list Palmer at 6'3".

The one that you posted from 1966, and 4 others from 1967, 1968, 1975, and 1981:

1966:

1967:

1968:

1975:

1981:

The '66 rookie card you have shown here has a typo of note, in that in the write-up Topps erroneously referred to Palmer as "the left-hander" when talking about a no-hitter he pitched in the minors in 1964.

[Pheasants]

I hadn't even realized that I watched Palmer several times during his only year in the minors. I don't think I saw the no-hitter but I remember he and Watt--who once tore his glasses off and offered them to the umpire. 63 and 64 were great years in Aberdeen (SD) with Palmer, Watt, Etchebarren and Belanger among others who we thought would make the O's.

[Flash- bd]

Sooo....Kevin Gausman...

[Frobby]

Sooo....Kevin Gausman...

Going off on a tangent is more fun. I believe this went off the rails when someone suggested that perhaps Gausman's command issues were due to his lanky frame, and someone else noted that Palmer had a similarly lanky frame.

So, back to the topic, I don't think a lanky frame has much to do with a pitcher's command. I'm sure I could come up with a long list of lanky-framed pitchers who have/had excellent command.

I think it's just something Gausman needs to continue to work on. It's not like his command is awful, as his 2.6 BB/9 will attest. But it could be a lot better within the strike zone.

[OFFNY]

Going off on a tangent is more fun. I believe this went off the rails when someone suggested that perhaps Gausman's command issues were due to his lanky frame, and someone else noted that Palmer had a similarly lanky frame.

So, back to the topic ...... I don't think that a lanky frame has much to do with a pitcher's command. I'm sure I could come up with a long list of lanky-framed pitchers who have/had excellent command.

I think it's just something Gausman needs to continue to work on. It's not like his command is awful, as his 2.6 BB/9 will attest. But it could be a lot better within the strike zone.

Pedro Martinez immediately comes to mind for me, and perhaps Tim Lincecum (in his prime) also, although he did have a lot of wild pitches in his first of 2 consecutive Cy Young award seasons.

And although I never saw him pitch, everything that I have heard and read about the 6'3", 175-pound Satchel Paige's control (looking like former light-heavyweight champion Bob Foster) was nothing short of masterful.

[Can_of_corn]

Pedro Martinez immediately comes to mind for me, and perhaps Tim Lincecum (in his prime) also, although he did have a lot of wild pitches in his first of 2 consecutive Cy Young award seasons.

And although I never saw him pitch, everything that I have heard and read about the 6'3", 175-pound Satchel Paige's control (looking like former light-heavyweight champion Bob Foster) was nothing short of masterful.

Wild child, does the ball fit through the hole?

[Il BuonO]

Going off on a tangent is more fun. I believe this went off the rails when someone suggested that perhaps Gausman's command issues were due to his lanky frame, and someone else noted that Palmer had a similarly lanky frame.

So, back to the topic, I don't think a lanky frame has much to do with a pitcher's command. I'm sure I could come up with a long list of lanky-framed pitchers who have/had excellent command.

I think it's just something Gausman needs to continue to work on. It's not like his command is awful, as his 2.6 BB/9 will attest. But it could be a lot better within the strike zone.

Really? This thread has a warm and rich history of going off the rails. I don't think it's any coincidence the same poster in question based his earlier opinions on the lack of wins by Gausman. Sooooo....