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

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Clay Davenport: First Projections for 2014

My first run (that I’m willing to talk about) of projections for the coming season is now up on the 2014 Projected Standings tab. They have also been used to create a new Playoff Chances Report. And, of course, the individual projections that go into are available, again on the Projected Standings page.

...Current free agents won’t show up here – no team, no projected playing time. Their projections are still available on the “All hitters” and “All pitchers” downloads.

Getting to some of the players takes a deep depth chart. I’ve prepared some that you can find under the 2014 Spring tab, under “dts”. Every team has three files in there. One is a dt file, which contains the translated statistics, 2009-13, with the computer-only 2014 projection, for all hitters in that team’s system; another is a pdt file, which does the same for pitchers. The “orgdt” file just has the 2014 projections for all players on the team, sorted by position and projected WARP, like the one here for the Nationals. Kind of works as a very deep depth chart for all teams, although I can’t swear that aren’t players showing up on the wrong team (especially for players who have been released – there’s a decent chance they still show up for their old teams). That’s just for these depth charts – I am reasonably certain that every player used in the major league projections is actually a member of their team. The one exception might be Matt Garza, who I have already written into the Milwaukee rotation.

Thanks to Carlos.

Repoz Posted: January 26, 2014 at 07:40 PM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mlb

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. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 26, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4646565)
A quick look at the team projections shows no "superteam" in 2014. For example, the projections have nine American League teams winning between 83 and 91 games - and no team winning more than 91. It also has no team (including Houston!) winning fewer than 70 games. A 21-win range between the best and worst team in the entire league would be quite a bit of parity!

   2. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: January 26, 2014 at 09:08 PM (#4646567)
Unless I'm missing something, and I may very well be so please correct me, these seem overly regressed for established players. For example, Miguel Cabrera is projected at .396/.535. His last three years are (most recent first):

442/636
393/606
448/586

Some other projections:

Steamer: 418/594
Oliver: 413/592
ZiPS: 404/581

Maybe all of those are wrong and this is right, but that seems a significant outlier forecast and I'd be interested in hearing why. Rinse and repeat for the Vottos, Tulos, etc of the world.
   3. Baldrick Posted: January 26, 2014 at 09:27 PM (#4646572)
If the Mariners score 707 runs I will be ecstatic. They haven't come anywhere close to that since 2007.
   4. GregD Posted: January 26, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4646573)
I want to see the 2 % of the simulations where the Astros make the playoffs!
   5. ursus arctos Posted: January 26, 2014 at 09:49 PM (#4646577)
Clark the Cub is sad.
   6. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 26, 2014 at 10:32 PM (#4646582)
A 21-win range between the best and worst team in the entire league would be quite a bit of parity!

These projections are regressed to the mean. The average disparity between the best team and the worst team for each simulated season is going to be greater than the disparity between the best average projection and the worst average projection.

I hope I explained that well.
   7. escabeche Posted: January 26, 2014 at 10:42 PM (#4646589)
Why are the Orioles projected to get so much worse, I wonder? They didn't make much progress in the offseason, but they didn't lose much either.
   8. Dale Sams Posted: January 26, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4646597)
First come first serve. I'll take the Yanks over 85 wins
   9. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: January 26, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4646598)
Why are the Orioles projected to get so much worse, I wonder? They didn't make much progress in the offseason, but they didn't lose much either.


I have to imagine that Chris Davis' projection is closer to 1.5 WAR than 6.
   10. JE (Jason) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:00 AM (#4646602)
Why are the Orioles projected to get so much worse, I wonder?

In fairness, Keith Law says they were never good to begin with.
   11. kthejoker Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:19 AM (#4646605)
I will gladly bet a $10 sponsorship on BB-REF that the Astros win 70 games this year. Either way I'll be happy, and it'll at least give me a reason to care when we're hopelessly out of it in July.
   12. bookbook Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM (#4646606)
'd take the under on the M's, assuming they don't do anything else notable this offseason.
   13. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM (#4646608)
A quick look at the team projections shows no "superteam" in 2014. For example, the projections have nine American League teams winning between 83 and 91 games - and no team winning more than 91. It also has no team (including Houston!) winning fewer than 70 games.

Projections will always have a tighter range because they are mean projections. We expect 3 teams, on average, to perform to their 90th percentile, 6 to 80th or better, etc, but we don't know which ones they are yet.

   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM (#4646610)
I'll take the over on the Royals. Their pitching will regress, and they may not even be as good as last year, but 77 seems low. They're probably slightly over .500.

   15. Mark Armour Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:15 AM (#4646612)
He is projecting pretty low offensive levels it looks like. This might be true. The Red Sox are projected to score 723 runs, way down from 853, but still the second most in baseball.
   16. madvillain Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4646613)
sweet, the White Sox faired pretty damn well, speaks volumes to the work Hahn has done overhauling the roster.

In fairness, Keith Law says they were never good to begin with.


loathe as I am to agree with Law, I kind agree with your simplified take on law's take. They were never that good, maybe like 85 wins good, you can't win a 80% of your one run games very often, ask the 2005 White Sox. Doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate it when it happens, but it's not repeatable.
   17. TerpNats Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:37 AM (#4646615)
I have a feeling that if the Nats do win the NL East, it will be with more than 87 wins.
   18. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:42 AM (#4646617)
[16]Considering they won 85 last year while winning 39% of their one-run games, I'd say you're underselling them a bit.
   19. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:51 AM (#4646619)
Rather disappointing and horrifying that the Cubs are projected to be the worst team in baseball while the Marlins and Astros still exist.
   20. Rants Mulliniks Posted: January 27, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4646640)
The 78 wins looks about right for the Jays. Man they are a frustrating team.
   21. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: January 27, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4646643)
Rather disappointing and horrifying that the Cubs are projected to be the worst team in baseball while the Marlins and Astros still exist.

By a full three games.
   22. zonk Posted: January 27, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4646645)
Rather disappointing and horrifying that the Cubs are projected to be the worst team in baseball while the Marlins and Astros still exist.


As big a mess as the Cubs were when Thed took over, and as much as 90 losses seems near certain... It's awfully hard for me to see how this regime gets anything more than one more 90 loss season. I think I'm being more patient than most - I like the farm system, I think we're starting to see some real depth, and if Rizzo/Castro can hopefully rebound, the MLB cupboard isn't wholly bare - but really, you can't have more than 4 years of complete futility.
   23. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 27, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4646655)
Rather disappointing and horrifying that the Cubs are projected to be the worst team in baseball while the Marlins and Astros still exist.

The Marlins had 4 starters last year who made 17 or more starts with ERA+ of better than 100 who are younger than 25 years old. They also have Giancarlo Stanton. You can only project so badly when you should have a solid rotation and a young superstar hitter.


   24. Matthew E Posted: January 27, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4646662)
The 78 wins looks about right for the Jays. Man they are a frustrating team.
I think 78 is way high. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't come within 15 wins of that.
   25. jdennis Posted: January 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4646672)
The team with the most wins has 91 if I read it correctly. While the 67 for the worst team could be accurate, I might have put something in the model that made sure a team won at least 95 games. I can't think of a season in which there wasn't a team with at least 95 wins. Also, I wonder how much the remaining free agents would change things. I also wonder how much of this is based on macro data and how much is on player projections.
   26. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4646685)
The team with the most wins has 91 if I read it correctly. While the 67 for the worst team could be accurate, I might have put something in the model that made sure a team won at least 95 games. I can't think of a season in which there wasn't a team with at least 95 wins. Also, I wonder how much the remaining free agents would change things. I also wonder how much of this is based on macro data and how much is on player projections.

That's not how projections (or basic probability) work. They're supposed to have a tighter spread because they represent the mean projection for each team. Those projections aren't saying that 91 wins will lead MLB, only that there's no team that has an *average expectation* of more than 91 wins. Obviously, some teams will perform to levels they only have a 10% or 20% chance of reaching (or falling to).

If teams were coin flips, the mean projection for every team would be 81 wins. But that's not the same as saying that 81 wins will lead the league because on average, you'd expect around 92 wins to be the average league-best in a league of 162 coin flips and 30 teams.

   27. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4646700)
That's not how projections (or basic probability) work. They're supposed to have a tighter spread because they represent the mean projection for each team. Those projections aren't saying that 91 wins will lead MLB, only that there's no team that has an *average expectation* of more than 91 wins. Obviously, some teams will perform to levels they only have a 10% or 20% chance of reaching (or falling to).

If teams were coin flips, the mean projection for every team would be 81 wins. But that's not the same as saying that 81 wins will lead the league because on average, you'd expect around 92 wins to be the average league-best in a league of 162 coin flips and 30 teams.

People are statistically illiterate #######.
   28. McCoy Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4646717)
With Tanaka off the board the Cubs are going to have to find some pitching if they want to avoid losing lots of games. After 2015 Jeff Samardzija is gone and all that will be left is the carcass of Edwin Jackson for another year and hopefully the resurrected Travis Wood.
   29. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4646719)
The 78 wins looks about right for the Jays. Man they are a frustrating team.

I think 78 is way high. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't come within 15 wins of that.


That seems crazy to me. I'll be stunned if they fall below 70 and really think 85 is as likely as 75.
   30. Matthew E Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4646726)
That seems crazy to me. I'll be stunned if they fall below 70 and really think 85 is as likely as 75.
Well, I like your guess better than my own, but I have this hunch that the Jays are due for a bad year after two years of consistent performance. I think some of the stuff that's been working for them is going to stop working.
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4646734)
Well, I like your guess better than my own, but I have this hunch that the Jays are due for a bad year after two years of consistent performance. I think some of the stuff that's been working for them is going to stop working.

Consistent performance? Their pitching was a train wreck last year!
   32. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4646735)
He is projecting pretty low offensive levels it looks like. This might be true. The Red Sox are projected to score 723 runs, way down from 853, but still the second most in baseball.


Hmmm, that seems to hurt the credibility of these projections quite a bit.
   33. Matthew E Posted: January 27, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4646737)
Consistent performance? Their pitching was a train wreck last year!
Yes. Consistently so.
   34. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4646753)
Well, I like your guess better than my own, but I have this hunch that the Jays are due for a bad year after two years of consistent performance. I think some of the stuff that's been working for them is going to stop working.


Didn't they significantly underperform last year?
   35. Matthew E Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4646759)
Didn't they significantly underperform last year?
They did about what they did in 2012. In 2012 I thought they were just underperforming; their performance in 2013 changed my mind.
   36. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 27, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4646784)
He is projecting pretty low offensive levels it looks like


I didn't do it for the National league teams but if you total up the runs scored by the American League teams it comes out to exactly the same 10,525 runs that were scored by AL teams in 2013. It doesn't look like it's a reduced environment, just a more even environment. The same reasons for the more smoothed out win/loss projections that Dan lays out in #26 probably explain that.

Someone from that top 3-4 teams is going to score over 800 runs and someone from the group of Minnesota, Houston and Kansas City is probably going to score around 625.
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4646788)
I didn't do it for the National league teams but if you total up the runs scored by the American League teams it comes out to exactly the same 10,525 runs that were scored by AL teams in 2013. It doesn't look like it's a reduced environment, just a more even environment. The same reasons for the more smoothed out win/loss projections that Dan lays out in #26 probably explain that.

Someone from that top 3-4 teams is going to score over 800 runs and someone from the group of Minnesota, Houston and Kansas City is probably going to score around 625.


Right, you have to remember that every year ~33% of teams will exceed or fall short of expectations by 1 SD.
   38. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4646815)
Projections will always have a tighter range because they are mean projections. We expect 3 teams, on average, to perform to their 90th percentile, 6 to 80th or better, etc, but we don't know which ones they are yet.


The only stats class I took was Intro to Stats, so bear with me, but if you ran enough simulations, would the results eventually be that every team finished 81-81? Or do they not regress like that?
   39. AROM Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4646819)
Well, if you ran enough simulations you might eventually stumble across one where every team was 81-81. But it's not a process that moves in that direction. And the odds of 30 teams all hitting that mark are probably so small that you'd never see it happen in your lifetime.

If you start with all teams being equal 81-81 teams, then just by chance some of them will win 90 games, others will win 70 games.
   40. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4646820)
I didn't do it for the National league teams but if you total up the runs scored by the American League teams it comes out to exactly the same 10,525 runs that were scored by AL teams in 2013. It doesn't look like it's a reduced environment, just a more even environment. The same reasons for the more smoothed out win/loss projections that Dan lays out in #26 probably explain that.

Someone from that top 3-4 teams is going to score over 800 runs and someone from the group of Minnesota, Houston and Kansas City is probably going to score around 625.


While acknowledging this is right, why do ZiPS and the other projection systems in #2 spit out consistently higher results? Obviously Dan is well respected around here, and justifiably so, yet it seems there is a materially different overriding approach in Clay's* projections.

*The systems agree on some players and has some normal variation. That said, the number of players that are projected lower in Clay's far outweighs the number projected higher in Clay's, particularly for established players. This isn't 'Clay doesn't like Miguel Cabrera/Tulo/Votto/etc', it's 'Clay is regressing Miguel Cabrera/Tulo/Votto/etc. more than anyone else'. I find the outlier approach interesting and worth exploring, especially for someone with Clay's track record, but barring a better explanation I'd rather just use other sources. Of course, a Dan/Clay debate would be the best outcome. Get on it, boys.
   41. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4646822)
Right on time! Sean, feel free to jump in too, to the extent that you can. I'd love to hear opinions here.
   42. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4646824)
The only stats class I took was Intro to Stats, so bear with me, but if you ran enough simulations, would the results eventually be that every team finished 81-81? Or do they not regress like that?

As you run more simulation, the average of each team will get closer to their true mean (in the case of a coin that would be 81).

That's basically the progress by which these projections are arrived at. They take the average of thousands of simulations, to get the most likely outcome. But you have to remember that the most likely outcome, isn't very likely at all. If you looked at each individual simulation however, you would probably find at least one 95+ team in most. It's just evened out by the time that team finished with 85 in another sim.

Edited for crappy grammar.
   43. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4646827)
Thanks Fancy Pants and AROM
   44. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4646833)
Thanks Fancy Pants and AROM

I think we both read the question a bit differently by the way.

Looking at it Sean's way, there is about a 6.26% chance of any individual "team" finishing at exactly 81. Not accounting for interdependency of results, the odds of that happening 30 times in a row would be 0.000079%, or a bit less than one in a million.
   45. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: January 27, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4646856)
PECOTA usually includes a category called Average Win Total or something like that that I find very interesting. Basically it would rank the AL East teams (like with Clay's list) but it would show that while the Rays are projected to win 90 games right now the average AL East winner finishes with 95 wins in the various runs. Those numbers usually look a lot more like the real standings than the projected versions.
   46. AROM Posted: January 27, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4646870)
I think we both read the question a bit differently by the way.


Yeah, I think so. Looking at in another way, the more games you play in your sim, the less spread in the results you'll have. Was that what was meant in the original question?

With 162 games, an average team will have a +1 SD result of 87 wins, or .540 winning percentage.

Play 1 million games, then +1 SD will be a percentage of .5005. With 1 million trials, a team playing .506 ball (the equivalent of 82 wins in 162) will be 12 SD from the mean, which means it pretty much doesn't happen. (an average team playing 12 SD above the mean in 162 games would be 157-5)
   47. dave h Posted: January 27, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4646877)
I think it's worth noting (and correct me if I say something wrong here) but there's also a difference between our best estimate of team quality and the true value of team quality. Our best estimate for the league as a whole is made by regressing every team to the mean, and while that will improve the estimate for some teams it will not do so for others. We have to do it for every team regardless because we don't know which ones should be regressed the full amount (or greater) and which ones shouldn't.

That was probably really unclear, so here's a thought experiment (and again, those who know this better can correct me). If you played the season a thousand times (actually playing the games, not calculations) without changing the teams at all (impossible, sure, but bear with me) then you wouldn't have to regress much at all because the observed value would be quite accurate. At that point the best team would have a lower average win total than the best team has in a given season, but it would have a greater average win total than even a very good projection.
   48. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4646882)
Yeah, I think so. Looking at in another way, the more games you play in your sim, the less spread in the results you'll have. Was that what was meant in the original question?

I assumed it meant repeatedly simulate the season, and average the results, but I am not certain.
   49. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4646894)

Looking at it Sean's way, there is about a 6.26% chance of any individual "team" finishing at exactly 81. Not accounting for interdependency of results, the odds of that happening 30 times in a row would be 0.000079%, or a bit less than one in a million.


Just to be obnoxious, 6.26% is binomial. There are a set number of wins in a 2430-game season, so if you're not flipping the coin 2430 times, you want hypergeometric. So 6.37%.
   50. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4646899)
PECOTA usually includes a category called Average Win Total or something like that that I find very interesting. Basically it would rank the AL East teams (like with Clay's list) but it would show that while the Rays are projected to win 90 games right now the average AL East winner finishes with 95 wins in the various runs. Those numbers usually look a lot more like the real standings than the projected versions.


I think SG does that in the RLYW blowouts.

Edit: Yes, he does. Looking back at last year's blowout is fun. Blue Jays at 29% for the division (Red Sox at 15), Angels at 40%, Nationals at 45%, Giants at 28%. Whoops!
   51. madvillain Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4646900)
[16]Considering they won 85 last year while winning 39% of their one-run games, I'd say you're underselling them a bit.


And their 2nd order win percentage was .503, their 3rd order was .513. It's a mediocre team that got extremely lucky to win 91 games in '12. I think it is what it is.
   52. AROM Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4646904)
Actually, there's a bigger nit to pick. The chance of something that is 6.26 (or 6.37%) likely to happen 30 times in a row is .0626^30, which is a number so big I'm not sure what to call it, something like 1 in a 1 followed by 36 zeros big.

I see the error, you got .00079% by taking .626 and raising to the 30th power. That's the equivalent of taking a likely event (.626 winning percentage is about 100 wins) such as the best team in baseball winning a single game. The best team in baseball winning 30 in a row? Very unlikely - less than one in a million. Take an unlikely event and make it happen 30 times in a row and the numbers get silly.
   53. Nasty Nate Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4646911)
The Orioles were an 85-win team last year and a 93-win team the year before. We don't need calculations to determine team wins for past seasons.

Sorry to be snarky, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
   54. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: January 27, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4646917)
I'm not sure what to call it, something like 1 in a 1 followed by 36 zeros big.

C'mon, man, undecillion!
   55. Gamingboy Posted: January 27, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4646948)
It's not showing up for me, but I'm curious as to what he sees Tanaka doing
   56. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 27, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4646952)
The site is down, but this site says Davenport projects 15-9 2.92 ERA 1.126 WHIP, 6.6 WARP, 216.2 IP, 41 BB, 202 SO

   57. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: January 27, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4646953)
He and Felix each have arguments for the #2 pitcher in baseball, behind Kershaw.
   58. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 27, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4647009)
I see the error, you got .00079% by taking .626 and raising to the 30th power. That's the equivalent of taking a likely event (.626 winning percentage is about 100 wins) such as the best team in baseball winning a single game. The best team in baseball winning 30 in a row? Very unlikely - less than one in a million. Take an unlikely event and make it happen 30 times in a row and the numbers get silly.

Hmm, clearly I needed more coffee. It did seem to big at the time.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(65 - 10:44am, Oct 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(30 - 10:44am, Oct 30)
Last: AROM

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1432 - 10:43am, Oct 30)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(40 - 10:40am, Oct 30)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(969 - 10:29am, Oct 30)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4581 - 10:28am, Oct 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogVanguard after the Revolution | NBC SportsWorld
(50 - 10:24am, Oct 30)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(9 - 10:17am, Oct 30)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-30-2014
(4 - 10:15am, Oct 30)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(573 - 9:55am, Oct 30)
Last: Willard Baseball

NewsblogAngell: The World Series is Almost Over
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 30)
Last: sotapop

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(25 - 8:14am, Oct 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(9 - 1:14am, Oct 30)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogESPN: Jose Canseco shoots self in hand
(66 - 11:53pm, Oct 29)
Last: eric

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(15 - 11:14pm, Oct 29)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

Page rendered in 0.6555 seconds
52 querie(s) executed