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

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Corcoran: Top studs and duds: The best and worst No. 1 picks in MLB draft history

1. Chipper Jones, SS, Braves, 1990

By career wins above replacement, Alex Rodriguez has been by far the most valuable first-round pick in draft history, but no team ever got more out of the No. 1 overall choice than the Braves got from Chipper Jones. Rodriguez, who went 1/1 in 1993, chased big free agent money at the first opportunity, leaving Seattle after compiling 38 WAR in his team-controlled years. Ken Griffey Jr. (1987) forced a trade to his home city of Cincinnati after 11 years with the Mariners, but Jones, a regional high school shortstop who settled in at third base in the major leagues, spent his entire 19-year, soon-to-be Hall of Fame career with team that drafted him.

“He looks just like you, poindexter!”

Eddo Posted: June 03, 2014 at 05:03 PM | 130 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: braves, draft, mariners, mets, padres, twins, white sox, yankees

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4718365)
The funny part is that at the time Chipper wasn't seen as the best guy available he was seen as a sign-ability pick.

The first time I ever even heard about the MLB draft pick was with respect to Rick Monday. The Cubs and Mets were playing and one announcer mentioned that Monday was Baseball's first ever draft pick. It was just presented as a random factoid.

The first time I ever heard/read about the MLB draft in something other than a historical trivia sense, was when I read that the Whitesox had just thrown the #1 pick overall away by picking Harold Baines- who was too much of a reach, and some unnamed scout allegedly said he was minor league roster filler you'd take when you needed a last man for the New York Penn league... Bajes of curse ended up with more career WAR than any #1 overall taken before him.

A few years after that the NYC media briefly made a big deal about the draft when the Mets took Strawberry, that's when I learned that the Mets once took Steve Chilcott over REGGIE! and how Chilcott was at the time considered the biggest draft bust ever..

Then I don't recall the MSM paying attention to the draft for few years- but then and Dwight Gooden went 17-9 as a 19 year old and 24-4 as a 20 year old and the MSM inexplicably* felt the need to mention that the Cubs had drafted Shawon Dunston ahead of Gooden (I suspect that a similar fate awaits Randall Grichuk)

The came the Belcher fiasco wherein the Yankees basically got completely and unfairly screwed... (of course who cares if the Yankees get screwed?)

After that there seemed to be slow but steadily increasing MSM coverage of the MLB draft

*I say inexplicably, because the MSM had never before seemed to have the need to dwell on the fact that player A was drafted just ahead of ROY/MVP player B before... it seeme dto start as random trivia and then seemingly devolved into a way of denigrating a player/organization
   2. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4718368)
Having read the piece, its animating spirit seems to be finding any way of not listing A-Rod #1.
   3. PreservedFish Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4718369)
Once I did whatever newspaper archive research on Steve Chilcott that my internet was capable of. It sounded like he was indeed a well-regarded prospect - he just wasn't Reggie Jackson, who everyone knew was the top talent. Drafting Chilcott was probably the 60s equivalent of choosing Joe Mauer, the signability high school star, over Mark Prior, who was "the best college pitcher ever."
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4718380)
(I suspect that a similar fate awaits Randall Grichuk)


It already does. There have been articles making fun of how many articles that mention that Grichuk was taken before Trout.
   5. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4718383)
Chilcott as an 18 year old in the FSL hit .290/.370/.467
not impressed?
the league's slash line was .229/.312/.302
Chilcott was 3rd in OPS

his OPS was just 1 point shy of #2, his 20 year old teammate Ken Singleton who hit .277/.449/.388
he was 28 point ahead of #4, a 19 year old who hit .278/.386/.420, that was Jose Cruz

#1 was a 21 year old named Joe Keough, a 2nd rounder from 1965, who played well at ages 22/23 in AA and AAA
had a catastrophically awful first 70 games in the majors (.187/.254/.199 an OPS+ of 29), but righted the ship and hit .322/.396/.443 as a 24 year old (OPS+ of 133)... and broke his leg and never hit well again at any level.... (egads that sucks)

Anyway, after his first full minor league year Chilcott looked like a stud, then he got hurt, then he got hurt again

   6. cardsfanboy Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4718386)
Having read the piece, its animating spirit seems to be finding any way of not listing A-Rod #1.


The Arod comments sounded like he was a jilted lover. Wow that was some petty ass writing there. In an article about best number one pick ever, it shouldn't matter whether or not the guy jumped from team to team or got suspended, it's a fairly simple war/waa exercise.
   7. Dale Sams Posted: June 03, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4718393)
He burned the Rangers, who signed him to a record-obliterating 10-year, $252 million contract by engineering a trade to the Yankees after just three seasons.


Did ARod really engineer that trade?
   8. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: June 03, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4718398)
Did ARod really engineer that trade?

Yes.

Hicks, Hart and Showalter met with A-Rod, told him the plan now was to go young (inexpensive). Rodriguez said he did not sign up for that. He had watched the ALCS, won by Boone, and thrilled at the seven games, hungered to be part of that. He told the men he would be interested in joining the Yankees or Red Sox. Hart called Cashman soon after the season. The Yankee GM then and now said no thanks. He had a shortstop, Derek Jeter, and he had a postseason hero, Boone, at third.

But Lucchino, then and now Boston’s president, said they got a call directly from Rodriguez.

It is forgotten with time, but as Hoyer explained, “This was A-Rod’s finest hour.” He was so desirous to get out of Texas and into the heart of baseball’s biggest rivalry that he went behind the back of the most powerful agent in the game to meet with Boston. He agreed to cut $30 million from his salary. And when that didn’t work, to move to third, though he arguably was the greatest shortstop ever.
   9. Batman Posted: June 03, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4718400)
By WAR, the seven best #1 picks were all straight out of high school. The top #1 pick from college was, you guessed it, B.J. Surhoff.
   10. Bruce Markusen Posted: June 03, 2014 at 07:33 PM (#4718404)
Chilcott was having a good minor league season in 1967 when he slid back into second base on a pickoff attempt and dislocated his shoulder. He was never the same. After six seasons in the Mets' farm system, he played one year in the Yankee system and drew his release. He decided to retire--at the age of 24.
   11. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 03, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4718423)
Did ARod really engineer that trade?

No. Check out the 3 paragraphs that come before the excerpt in the article quoted in #8:
But Texas finished last in each of Rodriguez’s three seasons while Hicks’ personal finances went into free fall. Hart, who had become Texas’ GM in 2002, and Showalter, who had become the manager in 2003, recognized the Rangers never could be a consistent contender with Rodriguez eating up what now was a diminishing payroll, even if A-Rod was performing at MVP levels. He still was owed $179 million for seven more years.

There also was concern about Rodriguez — that he was not really a leader, that he had a direct pipeline to Hicks, that he did his thing no matter what. For example, there were times he was calling pitches from shortstop.

Yet, Showalter contends, “Getting rid of the money was the biggest deal. We couldn’t put a competitive team on the field with Alex eating up one-third of the payroll, no matter how good he was — and he was real good.”

Seems pretty clear that the Texas brain trust didn't want to continue paying top dollar for a MVP-caliber performance on a last-place team, and went to A-Rod to get him to agree to a trade. That was widely reported at the time of the initial trade to Boston. Funny how #8 missed that.
   12. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: June 03, 2014 at 10:29 PM (#4718491)
Did ARod really engineer that trade?


Nor did he have sex with that woman.

Mark Prior, who was "the best college pitcher ever."


For us slightly older people, I refer you to McDonald, Ben. BEST.COLLEGE.PITCHER.EVER.
Though McDonald had an ok career, and he was picked #1 by the Orioles.
   13. stevegamer Posted: June 04, 2014 at 04:35 AM (#4718535)
I agree with the article's order of the top 3, with Jones as the best #1 pick ever. To me, I want to draft the guy who puts up the most value - for us after we draft him. The issue with A-Rod is that the value went elsewhere, and that doesn't directly help the team drafting him.
   14. cardsfanboy Posted: June 04, 2014 at 05:15 AM (#4718537)
I agree with the article's order of the top 3, with Jones as the best #1 pick ever. To me, I want to draft the guy who puts up the most value - for us after we draft him. The issue with A-Rod is that the value went elsewhere, and that doesn't directly help the team drafting him.


The Draft only gives you player control for a certain number of years, and Arod destroys Chipper in that time frame. I'm not sure I'm comprehending the concept of rating a "rank" of players drafted in a spot, based upon whether or not the team was smart enough to keep him. This has nothing to do with the organization, it's solely "best player drafted number one."

   15. CrosbyBird Posted: June 04, 2014 at 08:34 AM (#4718557)
Yet, Showalter contends, “Getting rid of the money was the biggest deal. We couldn’t put a competitive team on the field with Alex eating up one-third of the payroll, no matter how good he was — and he was real good.”

Or, you know, a quarter. That's the same thing as a third. Also, Chan Ho Park's contract wasn't any problem at all.

11 years later, and the "A-Rod killed the Rangers" myth still lingers. That team made so many poor decisions and spent so much on players that were near or below replacement level. A-Rod was the best decision that team made, even considering the outrageous overbid for the times.
   16. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 04, 2014 at 08:35 AM (#4718558)
he wasn't an overall number but the brewers pick of antone williamson as the number 4 pick in the draft back in the day was just ridiculous. the first time i saw the guy i growled, 'he's fatter than bob horner'. williamson had this soft, pudgy frame, no visible strength and moved at third like a wounded walrus.

for the life of me i cannot understand what the brewers were thinking.
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:09 AM (#4718574)
The first time I ever heard/read about the MLB draft in something other than a historical trivia sense, was when I read that the Whitesox had just thrown the #1 pick overall away by picking Harold Baines- who was too much of a reach, and some unnamed scout allegedly said he was minor league roster filler you'd take when you needed a last man for the New York Penn league.


When MLB released all those scouting reports, someone unearthed one that had a scout dismissing Baines because he had corn rows, which he interpreted as meaning Baines had an attitude problem. Sheesh!
   18. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:10 AM (#4718575)
Seems pretty clear that the Texas brain trust didn't want to continue paying top dollar for a MVP-caliber performance on a last-place team, and went to A-Rod to get him to agree to a trade.


That wasn't the question. The question was who engineered it. Regardless of how Ranger management felt about A-Rod's contract, it is clear from the quote in #8 that it was A-Rod who was the one who first broached the subject and framed the terms of the departure.
   19. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4718577)
for the life of me i cannot understand what the brewers were thinking.


I can't either. I remember seeing him in Louisville when they briefly had the Brewers farm team. I knew he was a top pick, so when he just didn't look like a player I thought he must have some John Kruk-like skill. Nope, didn't have that either.

Yet, Showalter contends, “Getting rid of the money was the biggest deal. We couldn’t put a competitive team on the field with Alex eating up one-third of the payroll, no matter how good he was — and he was real good.”


I think that's Buck being polite. Buck is a smart guy. He knows that 70 million payroll + 25 million + A-Rod gives you more talent than 70 million + 25m spent on the free agent market for a typical variety of players. But A-Rod came with a lot of baggage and they didn't want to deal with it anymore.
   20. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:15 AM (#4718580)
Rangers were probably at least suspicious about his steroid use if they didn't know for certain. With the anonymous testing going on in 2003, and random testing with suspensions on the way, that might have factored into their thinking. But that's not the kind of thing you talk about when discussing a potential trade to the media.
   21. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4718591)
He knows that 70 million payroll + 25 million + A-Rod gives you more talent than 70 million + 25m spent on the free agent market for a typical variety of players.


Really, AROM? The Red Sox took an exactly opposite approach of that last year, unloading a buch of the big contract talent and opting to find lower priced bargains with the money and that seemed to work out well for them. Teams like the Rays and A's have been even more extreme in their approach and had much more success than the Rangers had. Early '00's $25M will buy you an awful lot of talent, 2.5 AS's type of talent.
   22. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4718592)
he wasn't an overall number but the brewers pick of antone williamson as the number 4 pick in the draft back in the day was just ridiculous. the first time i saw the guy i growled, 'he's fatter than bob horner'. williamson had this soft, pudgy frame, no visible strength and moved at third like a wounded walrus.

for the life of me i cannot understand what the brewers were thinking.


We're not selling jeans here.
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4718599)
Really, AROM? The Red Sox took an exactly opposite approach of that last year, unloading a buch of the big contract talent and opting to find lower priced bargains with the money and that seemed to work out well for them. Teams like the Rays and A's have been even more extreme in their approach and had much more success than the Rangers had. Early '00's $25M will buy you an awful lot of talent, 2.5 AS's type of talent

Really. When you can plug an 8-9 WAR player into your lineup, you pay the price. He's worth 2 All-Stars all by himself, and give you the roster space to add more value.
   24. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4718622)
He's worth 2 All-Stars all by himself, and give you the roster space to add more value.


He can only play one position and bat 4-5 times a game. And if he gets hurt (or, ahem, can't play for some other reason), you totally screwed yourself. And you don't have roster space for anybody above replacement level because all your money has already been allocated to one player. Plus, spacing your talent gives you more flexibility than having it concentrated in one player.
   25. JJ1986 Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4718625)
Unless the minimum-salary guys you sign are going to be worth 0 (or less) WAR, then it has to be more valuable to a team to concentrate your talent. If A-Rod is worth 9 WAR, it's better to spend $25 million on him and the minimum salary on two other player than it is on 3 guys who are each worth 3 WAR and cost $9m a year.
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4718628)
The Red Sox took an exactly opposite approach of that last year, unloading a buch of the big contract talent and opting to find lower priced bargains with the money and that seemed to work out well for them.


It wasn't the exact opposite approach - they unloaded Crawford, A-Gon, and Beckett, none of whom resembled a 50-HR shortstop.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4718638)
He can only play one position and bat 4-5 times a game. And if he gets hurt (or, ahem, can't play for some other reason), you totally screwed yourself. And you don't have roster space for anybody above replacement level because all your money has already been allocated to one player. Plus, spacing your talent gives you more flexibility than having it concentrated in one player.

That first part is the benefit, not a bug. He accrues all that value in one lineup spot, leaving you two others to accumulate value.

He does not use all your money. Even in Texas, they had another $75M to fill the 24 other spots.

I'd much rather have 8 WAR and $75M to fill 24 spots, than 8 WAR and $75M to fill 22 spots. Those 2 additional starting spots are an opportunity for a competent org. Even if you only find 2 1-WAR players from the minors or the scrapheap, you're way ahead.

If you can't find other better than replacement level talent, that's on the GM.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4718639)
It wasn't the exact opposite approach - they unloaded Crawford, A-Gon, and Beckett, none of whom resembled a 50-HR shortstop.

Yeah, trading mediocre players being paid like All-Stars does not at all resemble trading an MVP being paid like an MVP.
   29. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4718655)
You skipped the part about not playing, snapper.
   30. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4718658)
I think it's better to have 3 WAR players throughout you lineup than a 10 WAR player at one slot and 2 WAR players everywhere else. You're certain to score more runs that way.
   31. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4718659)
He does not use all your money. Even in Texas, they had another $75M to fill the 24 other spots.


You're being deliberately obtuse. A-Rod took up $25M. Period. By himself. The debate is about what else $25M could buy, and whether you could improve the team by using that money on more than one person. The discussion isn't about what the rest of the budget was used for, or could be used for. The discussion is about the money that was used on A-Rod. By his lonesome. Period.
   32. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4718669)
I agree with the article's order of the top 3, with Jones as the best #1 pick ever. To me, I want to draft the guy who puts up the most value - for us after we draft him. The issue with A-Rod is that the value went elsewhere, and that doesn't directly help the team drafting him.

Braves paid $168M for 85 WAR.

Seattle paid $11M for 38 WAR.

I think I'd prefer the Braves outcome, but its not cut and dried.

   33. Batman Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4718670)
Seattle paid $11M for 38 WAR.
And they got Michael Garciaparra and Rene Rivera!
   34. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4718671)
ag1

but he had NO snap in the bat. he just looked like a fat kid who was being forced to play because his parents didn't want him laying on the sofa downstairs all summer watching tv
   35. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4718674)
Early '00's $25M will buy you an awful lot of talent, 2.5 AS's type of talent


Here's what $10 million bought you for 2001: Denny Neagle, Kevin Appier, Darren Dreifort.

Here's what $6-7 million bought you: David Segui, Kenny Lofton, Ellis Burks, Paul O'Neill, Andres Galarraga, Todd Hundley, Charles Johnson, Andy Ashby, Jeffrey Hammonds, Rick Reed.

There were some also big free agents, Mussina, Hampton, Manny...
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4718676)
You skipped the part about not playing, snapper.

He's not a pitcher. 25 y.o. position players don't miss broad swathes of seasons very often.

I think it's better to have 3 WAR players throughout you lineup than a 10 WAR player at one slot and 2 WAR players everywhere else. You're certain to score more runs that way.

If it equals the same total WAR, I think you'll win approx. the same number of games. But, it's really hard to assemble 9 3 WAR players. If you have the 1 guy giving you 10, there's a lot of room to maneuver.

You're being deliberately obtuse. A-Rod took up $25M. Period. By himself. The debate is about what else $25M could buy, and whether you could improve the team by using that money on more than one person. The discussion isn't about what the rest of the budget was used for, or could be used for. The discussion is about the money that was used on A-Rod. By his lonesome. Period.

They were paying him below FA market prices for the WAR he provided. What makes you think you'd do better buying 3 lesser FAs rather the ARod?

Generally, the top-tier guys get less $/WAR than the mediocre FAs (at the cost of longer deals).
   37. AROM, Instagram Gangsta Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4718678)
If you spread the money out, you might come out ahead. You might also wind up spending a lot of money on mediocre talent. If you spend 25 million on an 8-9 win superstar, more often than not you'll do better than the teams spreading 25 million among 3-5 players. Yes, even back in 2004.
   38. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4718684)
I think that snapper is absolutely right in this debate - collecting lots of decent veterans with big but not huge salaries typically does not pay off - that the Red Sox pulled off a magical season with that strategy last year* does not sway me. With regard to ARod in specific, the Mets were the team most rumored to sign him in 2001, and they ended up blanching at his demands and going with the piecemeal approach. Maybe if you added up the WAR of guys like Zeile, Burnitz, Appier, etc it would have approached what ARod was projected to do, but in reality it meant too much money tied up in too many declining veterans.

Of course either strategy needs to be executed with intelligence. Paying $13 million for Chan Ho Park was an immensely larger problem than paying $25 million for ARod.


*Not exactly paying off this year, eh?
   39. Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:16 AM (#4718695)
Harveys, you're cracking me up in this thread.
   40. Moeball Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4718715)
Correct me if I am not remembering this accurately, but I seem to recall that around the 2001-2003 time frame, when Hicks and apparently the rest of the Rangers front office were whining about how A-Rod was taking up too much of the payroll, wasn't Texas spending more on pitchers like Chan Ho Park than Oakland was spending on Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito...combined?

That's not a case of Texas not having sufficient funds with which to build a quality roster around A-Rod - that's a case of Texas not knowing what the f*** they were doing and teams like Oakland did.

Come to think of it, what were the dynamics that led to Texas bidding so much more for A-Rod than anyone else - didn't Hicks way overspend on signing him in the first place? Did the Yankees have the second highest bid? I seem to recall that Texas was at $250M and the next highest bid was only $180-190M or something like that.
   41. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4718716)
harry

well it was just so INFURIATING

it was obvious he couldn't hit. not in the way that would help a big league club. everybody here knows about el paso, correct? hitters haven especially back in the day. teams would score 850 sometimes 900 runs in a season. the brewers used to have their double a team in el paso and there were all kinds of crazy numbers put up. randy ready hit .375 in el paso with 20 homers. Billy Jo Robidoux hit .342 with 72 extra base hits.

you know how many homers antone hit in el paso? it was career high by the way. 7. SEVEN.

bah
   42. Baldrick Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4718723)
Braves paid $168M for 85 WAR.

Seattle paid $11M for 38 WAR.

I think I'd prefer the Braves outcome, but its not cut and dried.

Well, if we're playing that game, Seattle also paid $52M for 71 WAR, so I think I'll take Griffey as the best #1 pick using this standard.

Edit: But really, the idea that the best pick depends on what happens during free agency seems pretty silly. The best pick is either the best career or the best value during the period of exclusive control. It's certainly not this silly hybrid.
   43. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 04, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4718730)
following up on baldrick's comments i don't think the brewers can be criticized too heavily for CHOOSING surhoff as surhoff ended up being a 30 plus war player for his career. the brewers can be criticized for how they UTILIZED surhoff since it became clear in retrospect he couldn't hit while also catching. once relieved of catching his offense perked up considerably.
   44. Eddo Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4718751)
The Draft only gives you player control for a certain number of years, and Arod destroys Chipper in that time frame. I'm not sure I'm comprehending the concept of rating a "rank" of players drafted in a spot, based upon whether or not the team was smart enough to keep him. This has nothing to do with the organization, it's solely "best player drafted number one."

I think I come down on this side of the argument, though I can see where "future re-signability" could be a minor factor in discussions like these.

------

When MLB released all those scouting reports, someone unearthed one that had a scout dismissing Baines because he had corn rows, which he interpreted as meaning Baines had an attitude problem. Sheesh!

I love stories like these, thanks for sharing. It's bizarre to think Baines - about the quietest, nicest individual there is, according to what I've heard (and the one time I met him) - would have been considered a headcase.
   45. cardsfanboy Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4718757)
Edit: But really, the idea that the best pick depends on what happens during free agency seems pretty silly. The best pick is either the best career or the best value during the period of exclusive control. It's certainly not this silly hybrid.


Agreed. Basically the writer had the hard on for the guy who stuck with one team. The funny part is Chipper made more money over his career(not counting endorsements) than Griffey $168mil vs $151 mil....for 85 war vs 83.5 war.... So Griffey turns out to be the greedy one. Chipper was so friendly to his teams he never was paid over $16mil in a season (Griffey never over $13)

It's absolutely beyond ridiculous to trump Chippers "team friendly" contract and at the same time bad mouth Griffey for being greedy.
   46. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4718758)
What makes you think you'd do better buying 3 lesser FAs rather the ARod?


The 18 games the Rangers improved by the year following the trade.
   47. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4718765)
Edit: But really, the idea that the best pick depends on what happens during free agency seems pretty silly. The best pick is either the best career or the best value during the period of exclusive control. It's certainly not this silly hybrid.


I don't think I totally agree with this. For one thing, you are just looking at the pure value that the player has provided for the team, so it's as non-arbitrary a measure as you can get. But also there's the question of personality of the player. If we both draft superstars, but my guy is loyal to the team and wants to stay forever, and your guy doesn't give a #### and will bolt for the most money ASAP, well, there's a real difference there. Scouts spend a lot of time trying to gauge personality, drive, etc. Of course it's virtually impossible to do a fair accounting of this because of the variables at play, but that doesn't mean it's not worth taking a look at.
   48. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4718767)
pf

do we really think a player is disloyal for signing a free agent contract? barring the obvious i don't think a team can be too heavily penalized if a player leaves.

maybe this isn't what you meant to convey so if i misundertood my apologies

just that in my own backyard milwaukee has had many an amicable breakup just because the crew would not pay what the player wanted/expected. and brewer fans (most of them) didn't regard the player as lacking loyalty to the team. he just wanted a bigger check
   49. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4718770)
It's absolutely beyond ridiculous to trump Chippers "team friendly" contract and at the same time bad mouth Griffey for being greedy.


The writer did not do this. He merely said that Griffey engineered a trade to his hometown Reds, which is true, and that he stopped providing value to the Mariners at that point, which is also true.
   50. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4718789)
pf

do we really think a player is disloyal for signing a free agent contract? barring the obvious i don't think a team can be too heavily penalized if a player leaves.


I'm not making a moral judgment on the player. Maybe "disloyal" was a bad word to use. I don't have a problem with players seeking a bigger paycheck or leaving for other reasons. But there are different types of people out there, some are more and some are less likely to stay with the team that drafted them, and I don't see anything wrong with considering that as a factor.
   51. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4718791)
He merely said that Griffey engineered a trade to his hometown Reds, which is true, and that he stopped providing value to the Mariners at that point, which is also true.


On the other hand, one of the guys he was swapped for, Mike Cameron, ended up generating more value for the M's than Griffey did in Cincy.

   52. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4718804)
Which the author even noted.
   53. Nasty Nate Posted: June 04, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4718815)
What makes you think you'd do better buying 3 lesser FAs rather the ARod?


The 18 games the Rangers improved by the year following the trade.


What are you talking about? They didn't use the A-Rod money to buy 3 lesser FA's, they just had a much smaller payroll.
   54. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4718816)
When MLB released all those scouting reports, someone unearthed one that had a scout dismissing Baines because he had corn rows, which he interpreted as meaning Baines had an attitude problem. Sheesh!

I love stories like these, thanks for sharing. It's bizarre to think Baines - about the quietest, nicest individual there is, according to what I've heard (and the one time I met him) - would have been considered a headcase.


Well Bo Derek was nuts, it isn't like there wasn't a precedent to go by.
   55. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 04, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4718842)
On the other hand, one of the guys he was swapped for, Mike Cameron, ended up generating more value for the M's than Griffey did in Cincy.


For fun, I traced every part of that trade for the Mariners as far as I could go (not including lifetime minor leaguers).
Even if a player was a small part of a deal, the entire other side of the trade counted.

Player War (in Seattle for that time) -> Result (trade/waiver/free agent)

Level 1:
Griffey 70.6 -> Cameron, Perez, Tomko
Total: 70.6

Level 2:
Cameron 18.3 -> free agent
Perez 0.0 -> Winn
Tomko -0.2 -> Arias, Davis, Serrano
Total: 18.1

Level 3:
Winn 11.4 -> Foppert, Torrealba
Arias 0.0 -> free agent
Davis 1.4 -> Morse, Olivo, Reed
Serrano 0.0 -> free agent
Total: 12.8

Level 4:
Foppert 0.0 -> free agent
Torrealba 0.1 -> Carvajal
Morse 0.0 -> Langerhans
Olivo 0.4 -> Ojeda
Reed 2.9 -> Carp, Carrera, Chavez, Cleto, Heilman, Vargas, Gutierrez
Total: 3.4

Level 5:
Carvajal 0.0 -> free agent
Langerhans 0.4 -> free agent
Ojeda 0.0 -> waivers
Carp 1.1 -> bought
Carrera 0.0 -> Branyan
Chavez 0.2 -> free agent
Cleto 0.0 -> Ryan
Heilman 0.0 ->Cedeno, Olson
Vargas 6.6 -> Morales
Gutierrez 10.1 -> injured
Total: 18.4

Level 6:
Branyan 0.9 -> free agent
Ryan 7.7 -> PTBNL
Cedeno 0.0 -> Snell, Wilson
Olson -0.8 -> waivers
Morales 2.8 -> free agent
Total: 10.6

Level 7:
Snell -0.3 -> free agent
Wilson 3.2 -> PTBNL (minors)
Total: 2.9

Grand Total: 136.8
   56. alilisd Posted: June 04, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4718854)
moved at third like a wounded walrus.


They should have given him a cool nickname like Kung Fu Panda, or Fat Ichiro, and he would have been fine.

Also, I think the "we're not selling jeans" comment is a quote from the Moneyball movie, not an attempt to justify the pick of the Wounded Walrus.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4718855)
What are you talking about? They didn't use the A-Rod money to buy 3 lesser FA's, they just had a much smaller payroll.

Yeah, Tex. cut payroll by $48M after 2003.

I fail to see what the breakout of Mark Texeira, and career years from Ryan Drese and Kevin Mench have to do with trading ARod?

If they had simply cut payroll to $73M, kept ARod and had his 7.6 WAR instead of Soriano's 2.0 WAR, they very likely win the Division.
   58. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4718865)
If they had simply cut payroll to $73M, kept ARod and had his 7.6 WAR instead of Soriano's 2.0 WAR, they very likely win the Division.


Even more importantly, the pitchers on the 2003 staff as a whole accumulated -0.2 WAR while the 2004 staff accumulated almost 25. Aside from maybe Kenny Rogers, the vast majority of the '04 guys were holdovers.
   59. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4718890)
If you can improve by 18 games without bothering to replace your 10 WAR player, doesnt that sort of suggest the overrated ness of 10 WAR players?
   60. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4718895)
Arguing with Kevin is so tiresome. One wonders what the conversation would be if ARod were sent to his preferred destination, the Boston Red Sox.
   61. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4718899)
And yet you guys keep on doing it, time after time after time.
   62. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4718902)
What I find tiresome is the repeated dismission of empirical observation and data because it disharmonizes with ones preconceptions. Rather than question the preconceptions and revise them to fit the empircism, a mad scramble ensues to find alternative explanations that don't perturb the preconceptions.
   63. if nature called, ladodger34 would listen Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:44 PM (#4718905)
What I find tiresomeis the repeate dismission of empirical observation and data


Even more importantly, the pitchers on the 2003 staff as a whole accumulated -0.2 WAR while the 2004 staff accumulated almost 25. Aside from maybe Kenny Rogers, the vast majority of the '04 guys were holdovers.
   64. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4718910)
I for one would be happy to see evidence that a 9 WAR player and two 0 WAR teammates creates fewer actual wins than three 3 WAR players. But one solitary and borderline irrelevant example is not worth engaging with.
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4718911)
If you can improve by 18 games without bothering to replace your 10 WAR player, doesnt that sort of suggest the overrated ness of 10 WAR players?

Because they would have improved by 24 games, and made the playoffs (which is the actual point of the exercise) if they kept their 8 WAR player.
   66. Nasty Nate Posted: June 04, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4718914)
What I find tiresome is the repeated dismission of empirical observation and data because it disharmonizes with ones preconceptions.


This is truly hilarious.
   67. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4718933)
This is truly hilarious.


The ability of Kevin to write that without a shred of self-awareness is utterly astounding, I mean trolls on political sites could learn from him about how to avoid cognitive dissonance
   68. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4718934)
Record of teams before and after A-Rod left:

SEA 2000 w/A-Rod: 91-71
SEA 2001 w/out A-Rod: 116-46(!) +15
Tex 2000 w/out A-Rod: 71-91
Tex 2001 w/A-Rod: 73-89 +2
Tex 2003 w/A-Rod: 71-91
Tex 2004 w/out A-Rod: 89-73 +18
NYA 2003 w/out A-Rod: 101-61
NYA 2003 w/A-Rod: 101-61 neutral

So, to summarize, the teams that leaves A-Rod markedly improve after he leaves, and the teams he goes to stay the same.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the Yankees outspending everyone else by a mile with A-Rod the centerpiece were just unlucky. Maybe they miscalculated year after year after year with their bench or with their other players or with their starting pitching or something. Maybe A'Rod's a uniquely valuable player who could have helped a team win above just about any other player. But if he is, the record sure doesn't show it. So maybe the assumptions you are making based on WAR and the other stuff? Maybe you might be missing something and need to recalibrate what you are assuming? Just maybe? Perhaps just a possibility that you don't know everything and the case is closed?


   69. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4718938)
And quotes #66 and #67 generously confirm my point.

(It's not me. It can't be me!!! We're right, right??? It's him, right??)
   70. Canker Soriano Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4718941)
If you can improve by 18 games without bothering to replace your 10 WAR player, doesnt that sort of suggest the overrated ness of 10 WAR players?

This kind of feels like you're arguing that the mere presence of ARod on the team sucked down the performance of everyone around him (like the 3-D model Skinner used to display Bart's effect on his classmates on The Simpsons).

Hey, it happens. I work with a woman whose participation on projects singlehandedly guarantees that they're going to be difficult, time-consuming, and contentious. She drags down the productivity of everyone else in the group, in part because it's exhausting to just deal with her on a daily basis. Unfortunately, I don't have the option of trading her to the Yankees for Alfonso Soriano (or his non-union Mexican equivalent).
   71. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4718945)
Hey, it happens.


Yeah, twice. In two tries.
   72. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4718948)
I work with a woman whose participation on projects singlehandedly guarantees that they're going to be difficult, time-consuming, and contentious. She drags down the productivity of everyone else in the group, in part because it's exhausting to just deal with her on a daily basis.


And let me guess. When she is assigned to work on something alone and that doesn't require interpersonal collaboration and cooperation, she shines, right?
   73. PreservedFish Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4718952)
I'm confused. Is ARod a uniquely poisonous character or is the entire framework of WAR faulty?
   74. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4718953)
Because they would have improved by 24 games, and made the playoffs (which is the actual point of the exercise) if they kept their 8 WAR player.


That's pure speculation, snapper. Unsubstantiated speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened if the Rangers kept A-Rod.
   75. Canker Soriano Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4718954)
So, to summarize, the teams that leaves A-Rod markedly improve after he leaves, and the teams he goes to stay the same.

A, your math is wrong (Seattle improved by 25 games, not 15).

B, your approach is ridiculous. There are a thousand factors that contribute to a team's record, and you've highlighted 2 seasons where teams have gone from A-Rod bad to post-ARod good without bothering to look at anything beyond his departure. Someone has already pointed out (twice) that the pitching staff on that Rangers team went from sub-replacement level to pretty damn good between 2003 and 2004, and not because ARod's departure freed up money to sign a couple of kickass new starters. If you really sat down and examined each player on the roster from each season, don't you think you could explain away all (or most) of the difference in records? Or is it (as I alleged above) really a case of "OMG ARod sux down those around him toxic roid-man GoSox! #backlasher4ever".

Seriously, weren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? This would be bad science from a 6th grader.
   76. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4718958)
Yeah, twice. In two tries.

So, how do you explain the 2004-12 Yankees making the playoffs 8 of 9 years and winning a WS (led by an insane ARod performance in the playoffs)?

They certainly don't seem to be setting the world on fire in 2014 freed from the ARod curse.
   77. Ron J2 Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4718959)
#1 I've posted bits of a scouting report on Harold Baines where the scout explains he docked Baines 5 points because he didn't like Baines' hair (tough to imagine now, but he wore it in cornrows)

EDIT: Missed #17. But that report first surfaced in Stan Hart's book Scouting Reports. I first posted snippets of that scouting report on rsb in 1998. The scout in question was 71 years old and also said: "Only my opinion but this player could be more trouble than he's worth."

   78. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4718960)
That's pure speculation, snapper. Unsubstantiated speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened if the Rangers kept A-Rod.

I know they would have been better keeping ARod instead of having Soriano.
   79. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4718961)
So, to summarize, the teams that leaves A-Rod markedly improve after he leaves

yes when a team loses AROD but adds Ichiro Suzuki and Brett Boone AND Boone plays likes AROD and Moyer goes from an 83 ERA+ to 120 and they outplay their Pythag by 7... sure you can improve by 25 games when AROD leaves...

Or you can gain 18 games when AROD leaves, when you don't lose any offense because Teixera's breakout makes up for the loss when you went from AROD to Soriano, and your pitchers go from a collective 89 ERA+ to 111, which obviously had nothing to do with things like getting Ismael Valdez's 6.10 and and Colby Lewis 7.30 ERAs out of the rotation, but was solely due to replacing AROD's glove with Soriano's superior one and negating the magical suck-field that AROD projected onto his teammates...

and of could the fact that neither Seattle nor Texas sustained their post AROD bounce is further proof that AROD had dragged those teams down to begin with, because...

reasons grumble, grumble, steroids...
   80. Canker Soriano Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4718962)
That's pure speculation, snapper. Unsubstantiated speculation. You can't possibly know what would have happened if the Rangers kept A-Rod.

It's like you should be commenting into a mirror. You can't possibly know what would have happened if the Rangers kept A-Rod either. Maybe they would have won 100 games and World Series.

Your speculation is fine, but the speculation of others is unsubstantiated and awful?

   81. Canker Soriano Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4718965)
#1 I've posted bits of a scouting report on Harold Baines where the scout explains he docked Baines 5 points because he didn't like Baines' hair (tough to imagine now, but he wore it in cornrows)

Now I want to see the Oscar Gamble scouting report.
   82. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4718969)
I'm focusing on the most important stuff, which I try to do. I don't give a crap about WAR or UZR or RAA or any of that other stuff if it doesn't correlate to with W's and L's.

We know chemistry counts. We know intangibles count. What we don't know is how to quantitate them. But just because we don't know how to quantitate them doesn't mean they don't count. so if you see a discconnect between your model and the empriical data, you don't automatically say the empriical data is worng without revisiting the assumptions built in to your model.

A-Rod might be that female office worker of yours, where everything she does to boost productivity is negated by the deflating effect she has on everyone else.

   83. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4718970)
It's like you should be commenting into a mirror. You can't possibly know what would have happened if the Rangers kept A-Rod either.


I'm not claiming to. All I'm doing is presenting what actually happened.
   84. Baldrick Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4718971)
Your speculation is fine, but the speculation of others is unsubstantiated and awful?

The kevin mantra
   85. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4718972)
Now I want to see the Oscar Gamble scouting report.

I know you're making a joke about his afro- but Gamble's scouting reports likely said that he his upside was a lightning fast Curt Flood type with no power.
   86. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4718974)
A-Rod might be that female office worker of yours, where everything she does to boost productivity is negated by the deflating effect she has on everyone else.

Explain the Yankees continued success with ARod. Are you arguing those were true-talent 110 wins Yankee teams that could withstand the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" and still make the playoffs?
   87. Baldrick Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4718978)
A-Rod might be that female office worker of yours, where everything she does to boost productivity is negated by the deflating effect she has on everyone else.

You know who never won a World Series? Jim Rice. And Ted Williams. And Yaz.

Clubhouse cancers!
   88. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4718980)
I know they would have been better keeping ARod instead of having Soriano.


No, you don't. You might think you can predict the future or the know how alternative history would have played out but you don't. Unless you have some paranormal powers the rest of us humans don't possess. And you're not claiming the possession of paranormal powers, are you?
   89. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4718982)
No, you don't. You might think you can predict the future or the know how alternative history would have played out but you don't. Unless you have some paranormal powers the rest of us humans don't possess. And you're not claiming the possession of paranormal powers, are you?

Really? It's controversial now that having better players will improve a team?
   90. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4718986)
Explain the Yankees continued success with ARod. Are you arguing those were true-talent 110 wins Yankee teams that could withstand the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" and still make the playoffs?


What success? They outspend everybody year after year after year and have only managed to win once. Compared to the Cardinals, the Red Sox, the Giants, they've been a failure. They've outspent the crap out of thiose teams and still have come up short.

Snapper, you have to get a grip.
   91. Nasty Nate Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4718988)
The Red Sox had 6 years with Pedro Martinez not having jheri curls, and one season with him having jheri curls. They only won the world series in the jheri curl year. My preconception has always been that it was coincidental, but now I realize that clashes with the empirical observation and data!
   92. JJ1986 Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4718990)
Arguing that A-Rod is not worth 8-WAR as an individual is a completely different argument from the first one posited that having your value concentrated in one player is not a good use of resources.
   93. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4718991)
You know who never won a World Series? Jim Rice. And Ted Williams. And Yaz.

Clubhouse cancers!


You know what else? In Williams last year the Sox won 65 games. The next year? 76 winss. +11

And in Willies Mays last year with the Giants, they went 69-86, next year 88-74. In Mike Schmidt's last year, the Phillies won 67 games. the next year? 77 wins.

They should get all these cancers out of the Hall of Fame.
   94. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4718993)
What success? They outspend everybody year after year after year and have only managed to win once. Compared to the Cardinals, the Red Sox, the Giants, they've been a failure. They've outspent the crap out of thiose teams and still have come up short.

Snapper, you have to get a grip.


Are those goalposts getting heavy?
   95. Baldrick Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4718995)
In 2003 and 2005, the Red Sox did not have Brian Daubach, Cesar Crespo, or Andy Dominque. In 2004 they did.

The three most important contributors to breaking the curse!
   96. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4718996)
so if you see a disconnect between your model and the emprical data, you don't automatically say the empirical data is wrong


there's no disconnect between what anyone's WAR models says and the empirical data with respect to the post-AROD teams

you can look at Seattle's roster and see that they lost AROD, but added Suzuki and Boone and Moyer pitched dramatically better.
was that AROD? Well in one sense yes, if they had extended AROD it's possible they don't sign Suzuki or sign Boone- but if AROD was such a bad teammate, what does that have to do with Boone's break out? he never played with AROD, nor did Ichiro.

In Texas you had Tex breakout- had AROD been holding him back?
Did the 2004 Rangers take away scads of innings from guys like Valdez and Lewis and give them to Drese (who was flukily good in 2004) because of AROD?

You have zero interest in looking at what happened on either team, each team was 24+ROD or 25 (no AROD), the 24 other players are rendered meaningless in your mind, each teams fate hinged solely on what AROD did or didn't do.

People are open to the idea that AROD was a bad teammate, and maybe his presence impacted the performance of other players, but you have no interest in looking at any data point save the one that advances your argument. You look at/use baseball stats the way YC or Dean Chambers looks at/use polling data- and then you have the sheer audacity to complain that others are doing exactly what your are doing.
   97. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4718997)
It's controversial now that having better players will improve a team?


No, it's false to say you know something is going to transpire when player X is moved to team Y. There is no possible way you could know, because nobody knows what will happen in the future until it actually happens.
   98. madvillain Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4718998)
But just because we don't know how to quantitate them doesn't mean they don't count


This can't be farther from the truth. As anyone who works in data will tell you if you can't measure it, it's irrelevant. If we can't figure out an accurate and precise way to measure chemistry then it's functionally irrelevant. Black boxes and all that.
   99. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4718999)
so if you see a disconnect between your model and the emprical data, you don't automatically say the empirical data is wrong


With A-Rod there sure is.
   100. Publius Publicola Posted: June 04, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4719003)
As anyone who works in data will tell you if you can't measure it, it's irrelevant.


This is quite likely the craziest thing I've ever read on this site. Which means it's quite likely the craziest things I've ever read period.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB -- It's time to back off on manager bashing - ESPN
(8 - 11:57am, Oct 31)
Last: Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck"

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4813 - 11:57am, Oct 31)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(95 - 11:57am, Oct 31)
Last: Zach

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(25 - 11:54am, Oct 31)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(119 - 11:53am, Oct 31)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-31-2014
(15 - 11:53am, Oct 31)
Last: Good cripple hitter

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(150 - 11:48am, Oct 31)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(18 - 11:45am, Oct 31)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogNY Times: In Rare Film, White Sox Before They Were Black Sox
(2 - 11:44am, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(642 - 11:39am, Oct 31)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(23 - 11:31am, Oct 31)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(11 - 11:19am, Oct 31)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogA Visit to Madison Bumgarner Country, and a Proud Father's Home - NYTimes.com
(3 - 11:06am, Oct 31)
Last: Hal Chase School of Professionalism

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(65 - 10:46am, Oct 31)
Last: Ron J2

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(23 - 10:42am, Oct 31)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.9875 seconds
52 querie(s) executed