Quote:
Originally Posted by phenweigh
“After Tim Wakefield’s well pitched game in Toronto, he remarked that one reason for his success there was that they had the best mound in the American League. Of course variability exists in everything, but I would have thought all mounds in the major leagues would be excellent and pretty uniform. Do you find that the variability in mounds affects your performance? Are some mounds generally better than others or is this more of a personal preference issue? Do pitchers have any input as to how the mounds are prepared or maintained at their home parks?”
|
I would imagine that "best" really means most suitable to the individual and that there is no universally perfect mound. Some might think the most important aspect is a hard surface to provide leg pushing stability, others might prefer a softer construction to cushion their landing. Some might be the fidgity types for whom no mound is ever properly adjusted. Ever attend a game where Matt Williams was the thirdbaseman? You didn't see it on a televised game, but in between pitches, Williams was a constant and devoted gardener. He was always resmoothing the dirt, finding and flicking away imaginary pebbles, tamping down soft spots, walking around inspecting the ground. Since he would do this after every pitch, obviously it wasn't some probelm with the field, it was his way of keeping busy because he had lots of restless energy.
That's the way I believe it is for most pitchers....it isn't so much the mound, it's them. If you believe that you pitched well or poorly because of the mound, well, maybe you did. However, it is the belief that is critical, not the actual condition of the mound.