Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

Bryce Harper, Cricketer

What struck me, when looking at Harper’s home runs on Monday, was how familiar they seemed–not to baseball players and fans, but to devotees of the other great ball-and-bat sport on this planet: Cricket. To answer Stu’s question directly, the body of cricket scholarship suggests that Harper can be very successful indeed with his “unorthodox” mechanics–because, at least as they presented themselves on Monday, they were perfectly orthodox cricket batting mechanics.

RTFA

Chris Needham Posted: April 03, 2013 at 04:32 PM | 46 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 2013 nl mvp, bryce harper, cricket, nationals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4403455)
Yes, RTFA. Great stuff.
   2. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4403464)
Indeed, RTFA, once again. FANTASTIC, innovative analysis -- something I'd honestly never considered before, and now think may just be part of the truth. If nothing else, TFA led to an awesome YouTube video of a cricketer (I know nothing about the sport) named Viv Richards just absolutely demolishing pitch after pitch with a swing very much akin to Harper's...sending shots screaming out of cavernous cricket grounds.
   3. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4403468)
Richards was a phenomenal batsman. Our own Phil Coorey would probably agree.
   4. McCoy Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4403473)
Anything entitled "Natsradamus" should never be linked to.
   5. Chris Needham Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4403484)
If you think that's the worst Nats-related pun, you clearly haven't dug deep enough.
   6. Eric Ferguson Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4403490)
Sweet Jesus. This is what blogs are for.

Well, this and making fun of Murray Chass.
   7. zack Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4403492)
From the title I thought this would be nonsense, but it is actually pretty informative.

The reason I thought that is because what stands out to me is not how far forward Harper is when he swings, it's how far ahead of his upper body his lower body is. On reflection, those things are of course related because the reason he hits off his front foot is because his weight is thrown forward by that motion. But it still doesn't really look like a cricket swing in motion because in power swings for cricket there is usually almost no lower body twist on drives, or the twist is done and stopped on sweeps.

But then I haven't watched muck cricket since the 07 world cup, so I could be way off.
   8. G.W.O. Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4403494)
Great article, and great footage of Viv in full flow. If you get the chance to see the documentary "Fire In Babylon", do so. Viv is equal parts Bob Marley and Bob Gibson.
   9. jacjacatk Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4403497)
I only skimmed the article, but that nothing in that HR photo is unusual. Google image search "home run contact". Harper's swing is only really different in how far his toe is off the ground, but that's not even especially unique, as I've seen several of ARod doing the same thing. It's also not clear if the photo is pre- or post-contact, though I think it's probably post given where his hands are in relation to his body, since I think that would result in a pretty massive pull shot if it was pre-contact and he's got another foot or two to cover with the bat. I think, at most, he's selling out on the pictured swing a little a la the Happy Gilmore drill (also googleable).
   10. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4403501)
Watching that video of Richards, I was thinking to myself that Vlad Guerrero would have been an insane batsman.
   11. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4403502)
Fire In Babylon is a great documentary. This is my favorite cricket clip.
   12. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4403507)
Bill:

Having watched the Harper opening day home runs on video at live action speed, I noticed his back foot was unusually high at contact (the replays also zoomed in on the ball making contact with the bat, showing his back foot in the background of the shot) without having read this article. I would argue his back foot raising is more pronounced than any power hitters I've seen.
   13. G.W.O. Posted: April 03, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4403510)
@Crispix two salient points from that clip:
i) Brian Close was certifiably insane. There are many stories about how badly beaten up his body was after that Test
ii) Whispering Death is one of the great sporting nicknames of all time.
   14. vortex of dissipation Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4403541)
ii) Whispering Death is one of the great sporting nicknames of all time.


It was also the nickname of the Bristol Beaufighter, a WW2 fighter/strike aircraft used extensively by the British and Australians. Perhaps a connection there?
   15. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4403544)
i) Brian Close was certifiably insane. There are many stories about how badly beaten up his body was after that Test.
This is where not knowing the first thing about the rules of cricket really hurts me. Because holy ####, I can't believe the abuse the batter (batsman?) put up with in that clip. Obvious there's no such thing as a HBP in cricket, I take it? And what kinds of pitches are permitted? How close is the pitcher allowed to run to the hitter before throwing? Why would anyone throw from further away?

So many questions!
   16. Gwyn Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4403545)
Brian Close was certifiably insane. There are many stories about how badly beaten up his body was after that Test

Indeed
   17. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4403552)
Obvious there's no such thing as a HBP in cricket, I take it? And what kinds of pitches are permitted? How close is the pitcher allowed to run to the hitter before throwing? Why would anyone throw from further away?


Nope, no HBP. And if the ball hits your body in such a way that it would have hit the wickets had you not been in the way, you're out.

The bowler must throw from behind the opposite wicket line, 66 feet away.

Those were all dicey tosses, as the bowler's object is to knock down the wickets. Normally, the ball would be made to bounce much later so that it didn't rise as high. That clip was the baseball equivalent of "establishing the inside part of the plate."
   18. JE (Jason) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4403553)
Metstradamus is not amused.
   19. Greg K Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:40 PM (#4403564)
Nope, no HBP. And if the ball hits your body in such a way that it would have hit the wickets had you not been in the way, you're out.

The infamous LBW!

I'm fairly new to cricket so I'm still sorting things out. A friend lend me his 4 DVD set of the 2005 Ashes. From what I can piece together, for rule purposes the gloves count as the bat? (ie. you're not out if a ball heading for the wickets hits your hands, and by the same token if it glances off your hand and the wicket-keeper catchers it on the fly it's effectively the same as if you had edged it and you're out?)

I think I'm at the point where I can enjoy watching cricket, and even know enough basic strategy to be able to follow what the batsmen and the bowler are trying to do.

Except for the concept of "fielding restrictions". I've had it explained to me a few times and it hasn't sunk in at all.
   20. zack Posted: April 03, 2013 at 06:42 PM (#4403566)
Except for the concept of "fielding restrictions". I've had it explained to me a few times and it hasn't sunk in at all.


Which (in test, anyway) exist to prevent the entire game consisting of that clip.
   21. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 03, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4403601)
How much do professional cricket players make? Will the Nationals have to worry about being outbid for Harper's services?
   22. vortex of dissipation Posted: April 03, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4403614)
How much do professional cricket players make?


Mahendra Singh Dhoni made $26.5 million last year, $3.5 million from his cricket salary, and $23 million from endorsements

World's highest paid cricketers
   23. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: April 03, 2013 at 07:35 PM (#4403616)
Those were all dicey tosses, as the bowler's object is to knock down the wickets. Normally, the ball would be made to bounce much later so that it didn't rise as high. That clip was the baseball equivalent of "establishing the inside part of the plate."

Over and over again. By a 22-year-old bowler who was the fastest or second fastest thrower at the time, 6 foot 4, against a 45-year-old batsman. Basically the equivalent of David Price throwing ball after ball at Jeff Bagwell's ribcage in the 2012 playoffs. On the batsman's home turf!

The "grovel series"
   24. BDC Posted: April 03, 2013 at 08:16 PM (#4403669)
If a ball is bowled literally behind the batsman, it would count as a wide, right? I reckon this very rarely happens.
   25. zonk Posted: April 03, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4403715)
Having watched the Harper opening day home runs on video at live action speed, I noticed his back foot was unusually high at contact (the replays also zoomed in on the ball making contact with the bat, showing his back foot in the background of the shot) without having read this article. I would argue his back foot raising is more pronounced than any power hitters I've seen.


Right - just perusing a bunch of stills and a few animated gifs, etc of some power hitters -- I think Harper does look very distinct in that sort of "go meet the ball" approach. The standard seems to be a lot more wait back and explode onto the pitch. I wasn't much of a hitter and probably wouldn't make much of a hitting coach, but I was always taught move forward through the ball, open the hips and let the wrists follow, shift your weight with the swing, let the left/bottom hand pull the swing, the top hand guide... I think that's pretty much the classic Charlie Lau school.

I suspect for most hitters -- this is probably the proper advice. Doing what Harper does requires some extraordinary quickness and hyper-talented pitch selection. I would bet that even the most average-ish of HS pitchers eats most HS batters alive if they took Harper's approach.

The classic approach seems to be a more passive approach -- Harper attacks the ball.
   26. mchengcit Posted: April 03, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4403728)

If a ball is bowled literally behind the batsman, it would count as a wide, right? I reckon this very rarely happens.


Not always
   27. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4403729)
If a ball is bowled literally behind the batsman, it would count as a wide, right? I reckon this very rarely happens.


Probably, although I've seen a ball strike the ground wide of the batsman and spin back into the wicket.

EDIT: Well, there you go, courtesy of mchengcit.
   28. puck Posted: April 03, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4403801)
If this is the cricket thread, why is the IPL season so short? Is this because the players need time to play on international teams?
   29. OsunaSakata Posted: April 03, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4403819)
I thought the match-fixing scandals in cricket were because the players were not making enough money.
   30. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 03, 2013 at 10:13 PM (#4403832)
Holy ####! So could Viv Richards read the spin to know where the ball would bounce or were his reflexes so great that he could adjust to a ball that was bounced a few feet in front of him with spin to hit it out?

[edit] go for six [edit]
   31. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: April 03, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4403893)
I thought the match-fixing scandals in cricket were because the players were not making enough money.


This needs to be clarified a bit. Cricket has 3 forms of the game, 20/20, one-day and test cricket(can last 5 days). 20/20 is a relatively new invention in which each team gets to bowl 120 balls(or 20 overs(6 balls per over) at the opposition...highest score wins). Games take about 3 hours, younger fans love it. The Indians started a league which lasts several weeks, but with 1.1 billion people watching it, the TV revenue is huge, hence the massive increase in pay to the participants.

The match fixing scandals generally involved either players or countries not involved with the 20/20 series. Cricket is played by some pretty poor countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and England(zing!). Many of those players aren't good enough to get picked for the 20/20 Indian leagues, hence the attraction of say $100K bribe to bowl a few wides when instructed to do so.

BTW, Viv Richards was awesome. As a batsman, probably the fiercest, most destructive force in the history of cricket. Not a holder of the highest average(but top 10), but the guy could wreck a bowling attack faster then anyone. I believe Phil Coorey has actually had Viv at his pub for a speaking engagement recently, to which Phil charged accordingly :-)

And yes, you can bowl at the batsman as much as you like in a test match. It's a good way to soften up the batsman. However a good batsman will continually dispatch waist to head high bowling to the fence for a continuous stream of boundaries(4 runs), via the hook or pull shot, if it is constantly directed at his melon.

Shane Warne, the former Australian bowler, was the best proponent of spin bowling ever. Lots of footage of this guy constantly landing the ball out side of the batsman crease only to have the ball turn back and strike the wicket. Best is when the batsman puts his front foot out to fend it away and they get bowled between the legs like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEy-FX9k3C8


   32. Honkie Kong Posted: April 03, 2013 at 11:42 PM (#4403902)
Holy ####! So could Viv Richards read the spin to know where the ball would bounce or were his reflexes so great that he could adjust to a ball that was bounced a few feet in front of him with spin to hit it out?

The top batsmen can all supposedly read the spin of the ball. Some from the hand of the bowler to anticipate what he is going to "pitch". The bigger challenge is figuring out where it is going to land on the ground which can be changed by the amount of spin imparted to the ball. This is what Shane Warne ( linked above ) was very good at.
They also can read "swing", that is knowing which way the ball is going to move in the air ( Equivalent of reading whether a pitch is going to cut into your hands or slide away in baseball ). Then the bowlers started using "reverse" swing, in which the ball moves the opposite direction in the air to the generally expected direction.
   33. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 04, 2013 at 08:11 AM (#4403974)
For some unfathomable reason my employer blocks Wordpress blogs, so I can't RTFA and can't see the pics of Harper's contact. But wasn't Piazza known for hitting off his front foot?
   34. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: April 04, 2013 at 08:32 AM (#4403982)
I'd be interested in watching some cricket, but the couple of times I've looked for it on TV I can never find it. Is it only available on Pay-Per-View?

EDIT: Viewing in the US of course.
   35. richallen Posted: April 04, 2013 at 08:36 AM (#4403985)
This is interesting but, I think, based on a slightly false premise.

If you watch Richards closely, at the moment of contact his back foot is rarely in the air.

Lifting your back foot, or 'walking into the shot' is not uncommon but makes it harder to balance and thus get optimal power. I know this because the only cricket coaching I've ever had exposed this as a weakness: once I learned to keep my back foot anchored on front foot shots I got a lot more power. When it was airborn my balance was less solid and my shots far less authoritative.

Richards is the exception to many rules, of course, but again, if you watch carefully he's not lifting that back foot until after contact. He's strong enough that he could, and indeed he was famous for walking down the track and smashing the ball through midwicket (about 10 o'clock as he looked, or out to left in baseball terms), but that was because he was a genius, not because it was good cricket technique.

They also cite Michael Vaughan, who had the most elegant front-foot drive in cricket. And his back foot was planted, too.

Harper's leaning on the front foot is interesting but having played both sports (my cricket improved a lot from playing baseball) a lot this doesn't feel like it's on the money to me.
Rich
   36. Ron J2 Posted: April 04, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4404034)
#17 There are rules against "bodyline" (42.6a) "The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker"
   37. Natstradamus Posted: April 04, 2013 at 09:38 AM (#4404039)
I wrote TFA, so I'll address some objections here.

<quote>I'd be interested in watching some cricket, but the couple of times I've looked for it on TV I can never find it. Is it only available on Pay-Per-View?</quote>

If you've got WatchESPN or ESPN3 or whatever, they show cricket sometimes. One-day internationals, mostly, I think. But that's not a bad way to get into it for a baseball fan.

<quote>They also cite Michael Vaughan, who had the most elegant front-foot drive in cricket. And his back foot was planted, too.</quote>

I responded to this comment (which was copied on TFA) in full at TFA, so I'll give the short form here: "planted" isn't the same thing as "on the ground." The former implies load bearing; the latter does not. Vaughn's rear foot bears no load, nor does Bradman's, nor does Richards'. Harper's certainly doesn't because it's not in contact. When I wrote TFA, I was thinking: "OK, baseball pundits are going to hate Harper's stance. It shouldn't work. Why does it work, or how can we explain it might work?" That's when I started thinking about cricketers driving off the front foot.

Also: Viv Richards is all kinds of amazing. Here he is being interviewed about his batting approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVAB5CLP0pw

That video includes some higher quality video of some of the shots I posted in TFA. A couple of interesting things about Sir Viv that remind me of Harper:

1) He stresses watching the ball. An obvious point, but it goes to the "Harper meets the ball," observation someone else made on this thread.

2) Some discussion on being light on your feet in the crease, which is interesting.

3) Lots and lots and LOTS of discussion on the importance of self-belief and self-confidence when batting. In this respect, Harper cannot be said to be deficient.

   38. BDC Posted: April 04, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4404040)
Amazing video, mchengcit; thanks very much :)
   39. zonk Posted: April 04, 2013 at 09:46 AM (#4404043)
Since the author has stopped by - let me add the kudos of others on a very interesting read... I know very little about cricket beyond the bare minimum spark of action being so similar to baseball - but it definitely intrigued me and I wholly agree that a smart, forward thinking organization would be wise to see if there wasn't something in the manner of technique, training, or approach that could be transferable.
   40. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: April 04, 2013 at 09:50 AM (#4404047)
I've seen T20 on the regular ESPNs as well.
   41. richallen Posted: April 04, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4404073)
? “In the former case, the back foot is a non-weight-bearing structure that is only incidentally in contact with the ground. Totally unweighting the back foot so that it loses contact with the ground is not so far from that. Vaughn, Bradman, and Richards unweight their back foot when playing drives off the front foot, such that there really isn’t much contact there at all–they’re just dragging their toes. There’s no load being borne there.”
I’m still not sure I agree, although it does vary between players. A good example of what you’re saying is with Brian Lara, arguably the most gifted batsman of modern times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juPqTbTU4cU

Now he very clearly is lifting his back leg as he strikes the ball off the front foot. Lara probably had the quickest bat I’ve seen and in this sense works very well. Indian batsmen who played very ‘wristy’ shots through midwicket would do the same, the raised back leg being common in shots through the leg side (where you’re almost helping the ball on its way (imagine it’s coming from 1 o’clock and you’re using the angle to hit it to 9 o’clock)).

But I still think that the conventional wisdom of a solid base is right in most circumstances. Vaughan played glorious front foot drives, again probably the best I’ve seen. But look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7d-If78gjI

That back foot is not aloft and nor is contact with the ground incidental. Vaughan did not have a fast bat but relied on timing and balance for his power. That needed the firm base that two feet would give him. Indeed, when he started walking into his shots around off stump Vaughan got into trouble. Michael Atherton, my favourite player growing up, was another who had this fault.

I’m not making all this up. If you try to play cricket off the front foot with your back foot moving your shots won’t ‘work’ as well. It was a fault I had that was corrected by a qualified coach and as a result my game improved enormously. You absolutely can play forward while moving or with your back foot aerial – and sometimes it becomes the norm in close games where you need the forward momentum to get up the wicket for quick singles – but as already noted, at the moment of impact you’re better off with your back foot grounded.

This is different to being light on your feet. Batsmen will talk about triggers. So you’re standing by your stumps with no idea where the ball will come to. If it’s short your feet need to be quick enough that you can get your weight back and play off the back foot. If the length is full you need to get your feet into position quickly. Look at Vaughan in the clip above: he’s got his feet into position so that when the ball arrives he’s in a very still position, perfectly balanced to hit through the ball.

Against a spinner it’s different again. As you saw with Lara above, you almost need to ‘dance’ down the pitch to strike the ball if you want to attack. A spinner’s delivery is subtle enough that you absolutely have to be light on your feet if you want to attack: if you just plant and hit you might get away with it but probably not for long.

And yeah, when Richards came out to bat he could change a game before he’d even faced a ball! Talk about aura. He projected dominance and attacked early just to make the point. Awesome, awesome player.

It’s a fascinating article and I’m not trying to be difficult, I just think the cricket link is a bit forced perhaps.
   42. richallen Posted: April 04, 2013 at 10:14 AM (#4404075)
(it’s worth stressing that cricket has learned an awful lot from baseball, most obviously in throwing techniques)
   43. Natstradamus Posted: April 04, 2013 at 11:18 AM (#4404154)
I had originally meant to include Brian Lara in TFA, actually, but decided against it. Lara has the most "baseball" stroke I've ever seen in a cricketer, which might have muddled things up a little. But Lara is perhaps a better example of the extreme unweighting of the back foot.

There is a fascinating article here on playing drives off the front foot:

http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272:front-foot-play&catid=83:cricket-batting&Itemid=158

This passage in particular is of interest:

There is a traditional school of thought that does not believe in the lifting and turning of the rear foot as this is supposed to open up the hips, and therefore the shoulders, causing the batter to pull the bat across the line of the ball towards the leg side. However, if a correct closed hip alignment is maintained during the early stages of the lateral shift, and the weight transferred over a bent front knee with the foot pointing to the off-side, this anatomically constrains the action of the hips, so that any excessive opening of the hips is prevented. Therefore, this argument cannot be sustained on biomechanical grounds. And, of course, by keeping the rear foot solidly pegged to the ground throughout the entire stroke, the weight cannot be optimally transferred into the stroke, and it is more difficult to maintain a good head position behind the ball. This is another example of how a thoughtful qualitative optimisation analysis can easily dispel a troublesome technical myth that may surface from time to time. It is also a process that can be used by coaches who have some understanding of biomechanical principles - often a detailed knowledge is not necessary. As long as the cost function, design variables and constraints are defined correctly, there is a good probability that an efficient technical solution will be found.


The page seems to advocate a "wristier" approach to front-foot shots, and lines up with Vaughn's advice to unweight the rear foot to aid proper head position and drive the ball to mid-on. (or, if you're Harper, to right-center field, or through the gap between first and second).

There's a lot going on here, and I'm not sure I understand all of it--but I do feel like it's worth looking at and thinking about.
   44. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: April 04, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4404421)
If Maurice Clarett can play pro rugby, I've got no trouble believing Harper could crick it (or whatever).
   45. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: April 04, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4404543)
From what I can piece together, for rule purposes the gloves count as the bat? (ie. you're not out if a ball heading for the wickets hits your hands, and by the same token if it glances off your hand and the wicket-keeper catchers it on the fly it's effectively the same as if you had edged it and you're out?)

Yup.
A good example of what you’re saying is with Brian Lara, arguably the most gifted batsman of modern times

My Indianness and my Tendulkar jerseys are hurting massively at that one :p (I'm kidding somewhat, of course).
   46. Ron J2 Posted: April 04, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4404569)
#44 There have been a lot of baseball/cricket stories. What it basically boils down to is that a good batsman can relatively quickly learn to punish batting practice deliveries and the same applies the other way. I recall a Sports Illustrated article that featured Ian Botham trying baseball. He said something like, "No problem. They're nothing but full tosses." (Something like throwing a changeup to a major league hitter after telling him one is coming.)

Actually hitting any kind of a competitive delivery though? Color me doubtful. (That applies both ways)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(720 - 1:13pm, Dec 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(49 - 1:13pm, Dec 19)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4976 - 1:12pm, Dec 19)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(86 - 1:05pm, Dec 19)
Last: Ryan Thibs

NewsblogVin Scully lost his 1988 World Series ring
(1 - 1:02pm, Dec 19)
Last: Batman

NewsblogPadres Acquire Derek Norris – MLB Trade Rumors
(51 - 12:48pm, Dec 19)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9162 - 12:45pm, Dec 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogMax Scherzer not a realistic option, New York Yankees' Randy Levine says - ESPN New York
(18 - 12:37pm, Dec 19)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogJerry Crasnick on Twitter: "Jake Peavy has agreed on 2 yr deal with
(6 - 12:36pm, Dec 19)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(19 - 12:31pm, Dec 19)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(119 - 11:54am, Dec 19)
Last: vivaelpujols

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(28 - 11:19am, Dec 19)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogDo MLB Owners Wield Sabermetrics as a Hammer? – The Hardball Times
(3 - 10:45am, Dec 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog2014 Disabled List Information and So Much More – The Hardball Times
(1 - 10:26am, Dec 19)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(8 - 10:17am, Dec 19)
Last: bjhanke

Page rendered in 0.3989 seconds
48 querie(s) executed