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

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Chimelis: A voter asks if 9 Hall of Famers is too many

Ron Chimelis’ 9-man HOF ballot…but wants less.

My moral dilemma is not with guys who have been credibly tied to steroids. My checkmark will never be seen next to the names Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro.

My issue is sheer numbers, and so I am reaching out to baseball fans who might help me with this question: for an honor that is special for its exclusivity, is voting for nine players in one year acceptable?

The rules say yes. Voters can choose a maximum of 10.

Until this year, I had never given much thought to the rule. My unofficial guideline has been three to five, but that is not so easily done this time unless I say that guys I endorsed in past years - and whose records have not changed in 12 months - suddenly don’t measure up.

...So there is my dilemma. Even with nine, I am leaving out Edgar Martinez, Lee Smith, Curt Schilling and Jeff Kent among many other interesting candidates.

My definites start with Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and Biggio. I won’t abandon Morris or Raines.

Dumping Bagwell would mean following the crowd, which is a lousy way to vote. I won’t do that, either.

That leaves McGriff, who is arguably last among the holdover candidates, and Mussina, who will be back on the ballot next year. But I have already declared one a Hall of Famer, and my gut has told me the other is, too.

My inclination is to go with nine, but that’s so many more than I had ever intended when I first began voting in 2011. Many colleagues have no problem adding or discarding names, but isn’t that a sign of inconsistency?

I have until Dec. 31. Should I stay with nine, or whittle out some guys, and if so, who?

Repoz Posted: December 21, 2013 at 07:29 AM | 46 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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. Bob Tufts Posted: December 21, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4622083)
The only way to make this whiny column palatable is to read it in the voice used by Kyle's cousin on "South Park".
   2. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: December 21, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4622084)
I have until Dec. 31. Should I stay with nine, or whittle out some guys, and if so, who?

Piece of cake: Pick nine, then sell your tenth slot to Deadspin.
   3. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4622086)
Well, this is a good sign. If a guy who'd rather only have 3-5 names on his ballot is at 9, then it means we probably will have a lot of mostly full ballots. Which really helps Glavine and Thomas. If we have 3 electees that's a pretty good haul and will keep the backlog from getting much worse.

We should each email him saying he should add a tenth, and note how rare this type of backlog is... and how if we don't have a lot of inductees the backlog will get even worse.
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4622089)
Sosa has credible PED evidence?
   5. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4622091)
Paleness Enhancing Drugs
   6. AROM Posted: December 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4622101)
Dude, just give Curt Schilling a vote. Just because YOU vote for 10 does not mean 10 people are getting in. The way the votes are being split, we'll be lucky if 2 others make the cut and join Maddux.

   7. ajnrules Posted: December 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4622106)
This is a rare chance to convince a voter that had voted for Jack (The Jack) Morris vote to drop their vote for him, why pass it up? XD
   8. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4622116)
I just sent him an email at rchimelis@repub.com. Basically, I told him that:
1) There are more than 10 candidates who deserve it, and I say that as a guy who would be on the "Small Hall" side of the spectrum.
2) Every year that you do not use all (or almost all) of your slots, you make the next year worse.
3) Talent is not evenly distributed throughout history - Duke Snider was obviously the third-best center fielder in his own city, but was also obviously a HOF'er. In contrast, between the mid-70 and mid-80s, there were damn few starting pitchers who came up able to pitch really well for a long time. To me, this argument help explain why it is possible to be a "three-to-five" vote guy many years, but to evolve into a "full ballot" guy as bubbles come and go on the ballot...but it is also the argument for why Jack Morris is not a good candidate. Just because he was able to outlast Dave Stieb, Ron Guidry, Mario Soto, Steve Rogers, Mike Norris, Steve McCatty, Fernando Valenzuela, etc., and get to 250 wins with an ERA near four does not mean you have to pick him. Maybe, just maybe, there is nobody from that very specific time slot who was a Hall of Fame starting pitcher.

If you can, send him the email. Maybe he'll read it, maybe he won't. Maybe it'll influence him, maybe it won't. But I'll tell you this: As you read this, somebody from western Massachusetts is stopping him at a grocery store to tell him that Jack Morris was the ultimate Big Game Pitcher...so get emailing!
   9. Scott Ross Posted: December 21, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4622117)
In 2010 Chimelis unveiled his ballot, leaving off Larkin. I wrote him an email making the case that Barry was among the 10 best SS of all-time, and he responded, "I'm going to take another look at him - if he really is one of the 10 best SS (and I'm not arguing, just reviewing), he should be there.
Thanks for the food for thought." A year later, Chimelis was among those who voted Larkin in. I'm in no way suggesting that I was Lederer to Larkin's Blyleven, merely that Chimelis is legitimately open to reconsidering his position on such matters, a charm offensive just might work.
   10. TJ Posted: December 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4622128)
First question on my hypothetical application to become a HOF voter:

"There is a ballot with 15 candidates you feel are worthy of HOF induction. Our rules say you can vote for up to ten qualified candidates. You are not comfortable with voting for ten. Would you vote for ten?"

Any applicant who answers "No" is automatically disqualified and their application is tossed in the circular file regardless of reason, since they have made their own personal view of the process more important than meeting the responsibility defined by the process.
   11. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4622142)
I agree with Posnanski. We need to scrap this HOF and start over.
   12. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4622146)
I don't know why these guys struggle to vote for 10. I'd vote for 10 every year if I had a ballot.
   13. Matt Welch Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4622151)
I just wrote him, too, and lobbied for Trammell, using the Scott Ross argument.
   14. Morty Causa Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4622156)
I don't think much of this strategic voting stance. You should vote for who you think meets the criteria being the best, starting with the best qualified and going down from there. As some are elected, you replace the vacancy that is created by their election model ballot with your bench (or a newcomer of course), keeping in mind if, to begin with, a candidate deserves it at all.
   15. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: December 21, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4622161)
[8] Thanks for the email address. I told him Morris and McGriff don't meet my personal standards for the Hall but to not drop guys simply because he doesn't want to vote for too many. I also advocated for Piazza.
   16. Shredder Posted: December 21, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4622210)
I'm still baffled by people who think Morris is an obvious HOFer, but then say Mussina is borderline. I'm not arguing for or against either one, at least in this comment, but how anyone can evaluate those two side by side and come to the conclusion of Morris:Yes, Mussina:eh? is beyond my comprehension. Basically the argument is that Lonnie Smith's idiocy is enough to make Morris a Hall of Famer over a guy with demonstrably better numbers in every meaningful category.
   17. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: December 21, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4622216)
Chimelis has only been voting for three years? I've seen him speak at the Springfield SABR charpter. He's got to be in his early 60s and I figured he'd been a member of the BBWAA since before 2000.
   18. AROM Posted: December 21, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4622231)
"I'm still baffled by people who think Morris is an obvious HOFer, but then say Mussina is borderline. I'm not arguing for or against either one, at least in this comment, but how anyone can evaluate those two side by side and come to the conclusion of Morris:Yes, Mussina:eh? is beyond my comprehension. Basically the argument is that Lonnie Smith's idiocy is enough to make Morris a Hall of Famer over a guy with demonstrably better numbers in every meaningful category."

Me too. If I guy says he thinks WAR is ########, and ERA is irrelevant because pitch to the score, then you are still left with 270 wins > 254. Not to mention Mussina has fewer losses.
   19. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 21, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4622233)
I'm still baffled by people who think Morris is an obvious HOFer, but then say Mussina is borderline. I'm not arguing for or against either one, at least in this comment, but how anyone can evaluate those two side by side and come to the conclusion of Morris:Yes, Mussina:eh? is beyond my comprehension. Basically the argument is that Lonnie Smith's idiocy is enough to make Morris a Hall of Famer over a guy with demonstrably better numbers in every meaningful category.



Maybe they're "peak" voters. Morris had three 20 win seasons vs. only one for Moose. He also had more 8 IP starts, more GF and more 10 inning WS shutouts.
   20. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 21, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4622241)
Me too. If I guy says he thinks WAR is ########, and ERA is irrelevant because pitch to the score, then you are still left with 270 wins > 254. Not to mention Mussina has fewer losses.


Maybe Morris won to the score as well.
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 21, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4622244)

I'm still baffled by people who think Morris is an obvious HOFer, but then say Mussina is borderline


Morris was always the ace. Moose was only the ace in Baltimore, once he came to NY he was overshadowed by better pitchers. I doubt the analysis goes much deeper than that.
   22. Morty Causa Posted: December 21, 2013 at 04:48 PM (#4622248)
Plus, Morris, like Rice and others before him, and their promoters, rely on pity #### begging. Jeez, it makes you feel dirty to deny someone who would sink so low. You want to give in to them so they'll just stop humiliating themselves.
   23. Baldrick Posted: December 21, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4622254)
Morris was always the ace. Moose was only the ace in Baltimore, once he came to NY he was overshadowed by better pitchers. I doubt the analysis goes much deeper than that.

Yep. I really do think it's as simple as this:
- Game 7
- Tons of opening day starts
- He was the 'ace' for three World Series winning teams
- He started three All-Star games
- Most wins of the 80s

That's five different strong narrative arguments that suggest he was the best pitcher of his era. Throw in all the CGs and such, and you've got a story that Mussina can't match.

Honestly, I'm a) surprised I don't hear about the three All-Star starts more often and b) surprised that it took so long for Morris to clear 50%. All of the 'feels like a HOFer' vibes took a while to kick in.
   24. ptodd Posted: December 21, 2013 at 07:34 PM (#4622287)
You expect 1%-2% of players in the HOF that were born in a given decade, Which comes out to about 20-40 players. The current group of players born in the 60's only has 2 players voted in, or 0.1%. Plenty of room in the hall.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: December 21, 2013 at 07:50 PM (#4622292)

Morris was always the ace. Moose was only the ace in Baltimore, once he came to NY he was overshadowed by better pitchers. I doubt the analysis goes much deeper than that.


But can't the said be said about Glavine? (note, I'm a person who believes Glavine easily beats Schilling and Mussina, but he was only the team ace for a couple of years.)

I agree with the others, I just can't fathom how someone can reasonably vote for Morris (that is really the crux of it...but) and not Mussina. Mussina was Jack Morris, but actually good.
   26. bookbook Posted: December 21, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4622303)
Jack Morris was the bulldog you'd have a beer with, the buddy who'd have your back in a brawl (never mind that he started the damn brawl in the first place).

Mussina was the condescending ####### who'd let you know how much smarter he was than you. He was too busy drinking brandy at his club to even notice you were brawling.

Really they're not similar players at all.
   27. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 21, 2013 at 09:06 PM (#4622306)
Plus, Morris, like Rice and others before him, and their promoters, rely on pity #### begging. Jeez, it makes you feel dirty to deny someone who would sink so low. You want to give in to them so they'll just stop humiliating themselves.


Bert and Goose were far more guilty of campaigning for themselves than Jack or Jim.
   28. Bob Tufts Posted: December 21, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4622307)
Bookbook:

What does your post have to do with either HOF candidacies and the similarity or lack thereof of Morris and Mussina as pitchers?

Seems to me the non-barroom brawler with an education easily passes the HOF integrity test. After all, Eddie Collins was ridiculed by other players for his education, but he didn't fall prey to gamblers like some of his White Sox teammates.


   29. Elvis Posted: December 21, 2013 at 11:52 PM (#4622359)
Steve Balboni - thanks for the email address. I sent him a note urging him to vote for 10 candidates.
   30. calhounite Posted: December 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4622436)
Had a nice, polite email exhange with this reporter. He's quite knowledgeable and very open to sound counter-arguments. Takes his vote very seriously, and wants to deliver the most responsible ballot possible.
   31. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4622458)
Bert and Goose were far more guilty of campaigning for themselves than Jack or Jim.

No, they weren't. No one has whined and pleaded and cajole and coaxed like JIm and Jack in recent memory, especially relying on pretexts for HOF inclusion beyond the objective data.

Plus, Bert and Goose were much more justified in overcoming the slight perceived. Objectively. Jesus, Blyleven has more than twice (TWICE) the WAR of Morris.
   32. Bob Tufts Posted: December 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4622460)
From Chimelis' twitter last night:

"Amazing to me how many people think the difficulty of sorting out HOF cheat candidates from honest ones is somehow the voting writers' fault."

So your 2010 Spink Award winner who has served on the historical overview committee for the HOF (Madden) says Marvin Miller is morally unfit to be in the HOF and you have the nerve to whine about how difficult it is for sportswriters to make judgments on personal character?

Once your brethren started making comments like that one and the half baked "guilty until proven innocent" statements, you ALL own the crazy and have to deal with it.

Call the strikebreaker Madden when your paper is about to fold and your union needs help regarding fighting large givebacks - he'll surely have your back! Ha!

   33. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4622468)
No, they weren't. No one has whined and pleaded and cajole and coaxed like JIm and Jack in recent memory, especially relying on pretexts for HOF inclusion beyond the objective data.

Plus, Bert and Goose were much more justified in overcoming the slight perceived. Objectively. Jesus, Blyleven has more than twice (TWICE) the WAR of Morris.


Your second statement, which is kind of irrelevant to the question, has colored your impression on the first. Jim and Jack made some pleas for membership at the end of their ballot stays. Bert and Goose, on the other hand, were far earlier and louder about their Hall worthiness.

By the way, if you're going to the WAR well, then Jim Ed's quite a bit more qualified than Goose.

   34. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: December 22, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4622486)
Another writer who is openly on the fence about Morris in case anyone wants to write to him: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/12/22/2960743/fretting-over-my-vote-for-hall.html
   35. Bob Tufts Posted: December 22, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4622506)
Far too many of the borderline candidates want to pull up the drawbridge to Cooperstown once they gain admittance.
   36. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4622518)
By the way, if you're going to the WAR well, then Jim Ed's quite a bit more qualified than Goose.

Hey, they're your ringers, not mine. Both had better careers than Morris. One, a starter like Morris, had twice as a good a career, and the other was a specialty pitcher at the head of his class who pitched a whole lot of less innings to greater value. You're only addressing part of the argument.
   37. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4622527)
Hey, they're your ringers, not mine. Both had better careers than Morris. One, a starter like Morris, had twice as a good a career, and the other was a specialty pitcher at the head of his class who pitched a whole lot of less innings to greater value. You're only addressing part of the argument.


Pardon me? You brought up Jim, I brought up Goose. Both are better than Jack. Neither should be in the Hall, though you and too many idiot sportswriters think the reliever belongs, when his primary qualification is being a less horrible mistake than Sutter or Fingers.

Bert of course, should be in the Hall. And nobody this side of Scooter engaged in a longer, more vocal self-promotional campaign than the Dutch boy.

If outwardly campaigning for the Hall is worthy of rebuke (and I do find it unseemly), then that's true regardless whether the guy is seemingly deserving.


   38. Walt Davis Posted: December 22, 2013 at 04:56 PM (#4622570)
I hate to distract from the Xmas cheer ... it's quite common for any given ballot to feature 10+ hofers. Some end up being vc picks and many I would disagree with but they are there. The 2004 ballot had 9 plus Morris, who this guy is voting for, and smith who he is considering. given those last two I don't think he'd object to any on that list.
   39. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4622572)
37:

Pardon you? I brought up Rice as doing the same thing as Morris. I stand by that. If you want to include Gossage, and if he did that, too, fine. I don't believe it, and would insist that the argument should include the objective case for him. However, I have no objection, except for one proviso (see below).

This is what I wrote initially:

Plus, Morris, like Rice and others before him, and their promoters, rely on pity #### begging. Jeez, it makes you feel dirty to deny someone who would sink so low. You want to give in to them so they'll just stop humiliating themselves.

Did they do that or didn't they? Now:

Is there a line for making an objective case for someone like Blyleven, which is what his supporters did, that he was, indeed, according to the metrics a truly superior pitcher, and doing what is being done by Morris and his supporters, which is supporting a weak objective case with a lot of song and dance narrative? Is there?

I don't support Gossage. Indeed, I don't know if I would support Mariano. But he was still a better pitcher than Morris. And if you want to argue that, fine. But the argument should be about objective data and findings, not the designation of ######## attributes that are applied to Morris and were applied to Rice. If there is no objective support for a certain other candidate, and he caterwauls like Morris and his supporters do, then, by all means, include them, too, in that blanket condemnation to the extent it applies.

Now, see how easy that is?

To my initial statement you replied as follows:

Bert and Goose were far more guilty of campaigning for themselves than Jack or Jim.

To which I should have replied, horsefeathers. "Campaigning"? Why would you characterize what I wrote as referring to mere campaigning? That is a gloss that amounts to a redefinition, or at least an expansion of what I originally said. There is nothing wrong with making your case according to Hoyle and showing and emphasizing that you more than meet the specs.

I, in my reply to you, re-emphasized exactly what I was referring to:

No, they weren't. No one has whined and pleaded and cajole and coaxed like Jim and Jack in recent memory, especially relying on pretexts for HOF inclusion beyond the objective data.

Then, and only then, I added:

Plus, Bert and Goose were much more justified in overcoming the slight perceived. Objectively. Jesus, Blyleven has more than twice (TWICE) the WAR of Morris.

You concede that, objectively, Blyleven is a greater than Morris (it's not even a horse race), but you still want to think my objection was to campaigning. That's like saying if I object to pleas to pity ####### I'm objecting to any come-hither expression from any winsome lass. I think not.

I don't expect to persuade you of any of this. I'll be satisfied if you simply comprehend.
   40. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: December 22, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4622576)
I don't think Rice personally campaigned to get in the HOF, but I know that Dick Bresciani, the old Red Sox PR guy, did on his behalf.
   41. Walt Davis Posted: December 22, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4622578)
I hate to distract from the Xmas cheer ... it's quite common for any given ballot to feature 10+ hofers. Some end up being vc picks and many I would disagree with but they are there. The 2004 ballot had 9 plus Morris, who this guy is voting for, and smith who he is considering. given those last two I don't think he'd object to any on that list.
   42. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4622580)
If there is no objective support for a certain other candidate, and he caterwauls like Morris and his supporters do, then, by all means, include them, too, in that blanket condemnation to the extent it applies.


Your initial comment mentioned nothing about whether the guys were deserving, only that they were resorting to begging. Bert (and Goose, though I guess he's in with the others in terms of Hall-worthiness in your eyes) did more of that than either Jim or Jack. You apparently excuse that because Bert was deserving. But then it's not the conduct that's unbecoming, it's the identity of the participant that makes it so. Which I guess is fine, as long as you're honest about it.

And I'm not talking about campaigns from supporters such as Lederer's, or whatever nonsense is spewed on Jack's behalf. Only the actions of the individuals themselves.
   43. Morty Causa Posted: December 22, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4622617)
And I'm not talking about campaigns from supporters such as Lederer's, or whatever nonsense is spewed on Jack's behalf. Only the actions of the individuals themselves.

Well, from the beginning, I didn't restrict myself so.

Nevertheless, it's called a conversation. Neither I nor you have to be prescient. We don't have to anticipate every objection or every permutation of any possible quibble that can be made.

   44. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 22, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4622619)
Well, from the beginning, I didn't restrict myself so.


And I didn't suggest you did.


Nevertheless, it's called a conversation. Neither I nor you have to be prescient. We don't have to anticipate every objection or every permutation of any possible quibble that can be made.


Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

   45. vivaelpujols Posted: December 24, 2013 at 02:25 AM (#4623316)
But can't the said be said about Glavine? (note, I'm a person who believes Glavine easily beats Schilling and Mussina, but he was only the team ace for a couple of years.)


How the hell does Glavine easily beat those two? They each have more career bWAR (which is based on runs allowed and gives Glavine full credit for his BABIP skill, as well as Schilling full credit for his unearned run skill) in much fewer innings. If you give Schilling another 1000 replacement level innings he equals Glavine, but I'm not sure why that's a point in Glavine's favor. Schilling also has a far superior peak with only Glavine's '91 season matching it. Postseason numbers look about equal, again with Schilling having much better rate numbers and Glavine having bulk.
   46. vivaelpujols Posted: December 24, 2013 at 02:27 AM (#4623318)
Your second statement, which is kind of irrelevant to the question, has colored your impression on the first. Jim and Jack made some pleas for membership at the end of their ballot stays. Bert and Goose, on the other hand, were far earlier and louder about their Hall worthiness.


This sounds like one of those arguments where both sides are sure they are right and neither side is going to produce any evidence.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(71 - 2:55am, Apr 18)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(306 - 2:50am, Apr 18)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogGeorge Brett, Inspiration for the Song “Royals”, Meets Lorde
(29 - 2:25am, Apr 18)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogRobothal: What a relief! A’s could use bullpen differently than other teams
(6 - 2:21am, Apr 18)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOrioles launch D.C. invasion with billboard near Nationals Park
(14 - 2:10am, Apr 18)
Last: DFA

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(15 - 2:07am, Apr 18)
Last: DFA

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(139 - 2:02am, Apr 18)
Last: Alex meets the threshold for granular review

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(137 - 1:28am, Apr 18)
Last: puck

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 17, 2014
(131 - 1:09am, Apr 18)
Last: Davo Dozier (Mastroianni)

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(18 - 12:41am, Apr 18)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(6 - 11:58pm, Apr 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMLB: Offense's performance vs. Brewers favors Matheny's interpretation of stats
(6 - 10:14pm, Apr 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(68 - 9:08pm, Apr 17)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1584 - 7:52pm, Apr 17)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-17-2014
(15 - 7:43pm, Apr 17)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7242 seconds
52 querie(s) executed