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

Friday, September 21, 2012

EXCLUSIVE: Melky Cabrera ruled ineligible to win batting crown

Melky? Melky who?

In an unprecedented agreement between Major League Baseball and union officials, suspended Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera will be ruled ineligible to win the 2012 NL batting title, sources told CSNBayArea.com.

Cabrera asked to be removed from consideration on Wednesday, when his representatives sent a letter to union officials. The Players’ Association worked out a one-time amendment to Rule 10.22(a) with MLB officials on Thursday, one day after Commissioner Bud Selig said publicly that he was not likely to take action on the matter.

The elusive Robert Denby Posted: September 21, 2012 at 02:53 PM | 147 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: disappeared, giants, steriods

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4242848)
A dumb and silly move by Cabrera, the MLBPA, and MLB.

All involved should be ashamed, as should those of you supporting this nonsense.

Hopefully Sean does not go along. If he does, it will diminish the integrity of b-r.


Oh c'mon Ray!

It's a smart move for Cabrera; good PR, as others have said. And given that he asked for it, why shouldn't MLB and the MLBPA go along?

There are a lot more people that would be upset with him getting the non-existent "Batting Title Award" than share your point of view.

In any case, I can't see how it's a big deal either way. Again, it's the freaking "Batting Title", who cares? Can you name me who won the last five "Batting Titles" off the top of your head? I don't even know last year's winner.

No one is removing stats from the record. I agree, that would be shameful.
   102. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4242861)
Whether or not Melky agreed with it, this was a bill of attainder, a rule change targeted after the fact and at one individual, and the MLBPA was complicit.


So? Baseball has a duty not to let the game become a mockery.

If a player developed a batting stance that was both legal by the rules and which resulted in catcher's interference by the letter of the rulebook every time, I'd expect MLB to put a stop to it immediately rather than allow him to complete a season with a 1.000 OBP.
   103. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4242866)
81: that's not the way the rule is phrased; what matters is "the number of games scheduled for each club in his club's league," so the Giants having a rainout would not affect the number.

EDIT: yes, yes, cokes to many people.
   104. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4242868)
Why is Cabrera suspended?
   105. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4242869)
Whether or not Melky agreed with it, this was a bill of attainder, a rule change targeted after the fact and at one individual, and the MLBPA was complicit.


I find it interesting when people try to apply concepts from the legal system to the work-environment of MLB.

Rights like "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", no bills of attainder, rights to privacy, free speech, only exist in relation to protecting the citizen from the gov't. These rights do not exist in an employment situation.

The rights the players have are what's spelled out in their contract, and the labor agreement. No more.

If the union agrees that a "bill of attainder" rule change is within the scope of the labor agreement, it is.
   106. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4242871)
Why is Cabrera suspended?

Seriously? Positive PED test. Testosterone.

Interestingly, one of the news show had a feature on men using testosterone to boost energy, sex drive, and muscle gain. It's apparently common among cops, and the Police Depts. are cracking down b/c it produces aggressive behavior.
   107. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4242873)
Why is Cabrera suspended?

Seriously?...


No, not seriously. At least I'm pretty sure it was not asked seriously. I prefer to read it as a straight line, and the correct rejoinder is therefore "It's just a technicality in the rules."
   108. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4242875)
Seriously? Positive PED test. Testosterone.


He cheated?

As I stated before, there is an implicit "no cheat" clause to anything like that. It doesn't change reality, though. It just changes what that reality counts for.

When those guys in the Olympics were, and are, suspended for using prohibited enhancers, do they still get a medal? No. Have they still run the race and won. Yes. Because they "cheated", though, they are just not recognized as the winner. Why is this so hard to understand?

   109. BDC Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4242879)
So? Baseball has a duty not to let the game become a mockery.

If a player developed a batting stance that was both legal by the rules and which resulted in catcher's interference by the letter of the rulebook every time, I'd expect MLB to put a stop to it immediately rather than allow him to complete a season with a 1.000 OBP


This argument would be stronger if MLB, while suspending Melky, had also vacated the wins that he helped the Giants to earlier in the year. But the crime is not deemed to be that serious. All the records are valid, not just in Melky's personal scrapbook, but in the National League standings.

One can imagine a scenario in which a sports league could unwrite a record book – a far-flung game-fixing scandal, for instance, or clubhouse-spread poisoning of the visiting team before a play-in game. They don't remove games played on PEDs from baseball standings, for many good reasons, large among them being that it's just not the most serious offense one can commit.

The situation presents some interesting thought-experiments because it's so close to the edge. What if Cabrera had had that one PA, gotten a hit, and won the batting title under a very slightly different clause in the rules? Or what if his suspension had come earlier, he'd returned on parole and clean, and proceeded to win the title with a combination of his earlier "mockery" hits and his later legitimate ones? In those situations, there'd be no grey area caused by an "exception," there'd be no precedent for expunging a record, and there'd be an even more heightened sense of "we just find you embarrassing" if a guy was denied a "batting title" (and whatever one wins for that, which as some posters have said may be basically nothing).

EDIT: And as Morty's #108 shows, a team sport makes this a lot trickier than an individual race. You can strip a runner of a gold medal, but it's more complicated to strip the Giants of wins, or of Melky's hits and their contribution to those wins.
   110. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4242880)
"It's just a technicality in the rules."


Everything having to do with things like that is a technically in some way. Some count; some don't. Pretty much like making laws. Some things we make illegal and some things we don't.
   111. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4242882)
The rights the players have are what's spelled out in their contract, and the labor agreement. No more.


No less, either. So how is it that the privacy of the testing program that was collectively bargained by MLB and the MLBPA doesn't seem to carry any weight with you?
   112. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4242885)

No less, either. So how is it that the privacy of the testing program that was collectively bargained by MLB and the MLBPA doesn't seem to carry any weight with you?


Because the MLBPA doesn't seem to care to enforce it. If they don't care, why should I?

It's probably unenforceable anyway.
   113. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4242892)
Everything having to do with things like that is a technically in some way.


Right. That was the joke. Sorry you didn't like it.

And as Morty's #108 shows, a team sport makes this a lot trickier than an individual race. You can strip a runner of a gold medal, but it's more complicated to strip the Giants of wins, or of Melky's hits and their contribution to those wins.


Marion Jones' relay teammates would like to discuss this further.
   114. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4242916)
But not the rest of the US Olympic team, I bet.
   115. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4242918)
Right. That was the joke. Sorry you didn't like it.


I loved it. That's why I made my point. But you weren't the only one making the technicality argument.
   116. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: September 22, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4242946)
I'm not sure what the actual existence of an award has to do with anything. Clearly, MLB recognizes an official batting champion, in the same way that the Olympics recognizes the winner of the 100M race. I'm pretty sure that the Olympians don't care too much about the actual medal that they get, it's about the fact that it means that they won. You think a lot of Olympians are saying, "Boy, I'm getting that medal and melting it down for the gold!". I doubt it.
   117. KT's Pot Arb Posted: September 22, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4242951)
That's because there's a less controversial way to get to the same result. Cabrera should have been DQ'd from batting title consideration weeks ago.

Sports more dedicated to honest competition would have done just that; Lance Armstrong has basically been shunned and barred from all serious competitions -- he can't even run the Chicago and NY marathons.


Banned for passing all of his drug tests during competition, and for refusing to wage an expensive "defense" against charges dredged up a decade later, on evidence the USADA has so far declined to share with other governing bodies.

Yes, the MLB should be more like sports dedicated to "honest" competition, and eliminate any forms of appeals and due process from drug testing and just make up new rules as it sees fit and apply them all retroactively at it's discretion.
   118. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4242992)


He cheated?

As I stated before, there is an implicit "no cheat" clause to anything like that. It doesn't change reality, though. It just changes what that reality counts for.

When those guys in the Olympics were, and are, suspended for using prohibited enhancers, do they still get a medal? No. Have they still run the race and won. Yes. Because they "cheated", though, they are just not recognized as the winner. Why is this so hard to understand?


As I referenced before, Norm Cash admitted he used a corked bat for much of the 1961 season, in which he won a batting title. Should that be stripped?
   119. base ball chick Posted: September 22, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4243009)
118. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4242992)


He cheated?

As I stated before, there is an implicit "no cheat" clause to anything like that. It doesn't change reality, though. It just changes what that reality counts for.





As I referenced before, Norm Cash admitted he used a corked bat for much of the 1961 season, in which he won a batting title. Should that be stripped?


well seeing as how you are going to change rules retroactively, tony gwynn should have his title removed, too

and certainly norm cash should have his title took away from his seeing as how he cheated, too

but it won't happen because people really don't care about "cheating" unless it involved the player using testosterone and then they only care if the player happens to be any good. you notice all the screams of outrage that guillermo moto has been allowed to play and nobody wants to erase his stats.

or alex sanchez' stats. or the stats of ANY non-"important" guy who has tested positive
   120. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4243015)
but it won't happen because people really don't care about "cheating" unless it involved the player using testosterone and then they only care if the player happens to be any good. you notice all the screams of outrage that guillermo moto has been allowed to play and nobody wants to erase his stats.

or alex sanchez' stats. or the stats of ANY non-"important" guy who has tested positive


Again, they're not erasing any stats. All Melky's stats remain in the record book.

They are simply changing how an award is calculated vis-a-vis a suspended player.
   121. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4243042)
As I referenced before, Norm Cash admitted he used a corked bat for much of the 1961 season, in which he won a batting title. Should that be stripped?


It's all right with me. It’s not a big deal—it has no bearing on the stats. If you think it’s that important, go for it. But, if Cash had been caught at the time, if there were protocols to do that with certitude, and if he made the same request as Cabrera, then, yes, he shouldn’t get the award.

It’s like, do you want to make someone high school teacher of the year who dates members of his class? It’s more image than anything—it looks like #### to make an award in the presence to a cheater. And, it’s cheating. It’s a violation of a big rule.

I would note that one would change something long ago in the past and the other has to do with now, and is changing a future award that the powers that be have the power to keep from being award now. It’s about honesty now. If we’re going to live in this idealistic frame of mind, why not nullify all awards during the time when only white guys could play the game.

But I believe awarding and re-awarding titles in the past has been done before. Recently for Jim Gentile. And some sources say Cobb won the 1910 batting title and some say Lajoie. But, the award was made. Now, it’s just a matter of statistics.

Look, if you're looking for a Platonic ideal to live by, you're not to going to find it. However, there is reason to not award in real time those who cheated. Jesus.

And, again, we have other sports where players are stripped of their awards. It happens all the time in the Olympics. And do I need to mention bicycling? There was an interview with Roddick or Murray or somebody where he said that tennis players are check quite often during the season (he says one year he was tested without warning something like 16 times). You think that was just for fun? Or you think it would have some effect. Yet, no one is going back to see if Rod Laver used PEDs. Is that an outrage? Should that render the testing now invalid?
   122. VoodooR Posted: September 22, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4243051)
However, there is reason to not award in real time those who cheated.


That doesn't make the method of not awarding this particular award to Melky any less ham-fisted. Again, if MLB wants to institute a rule that steroid-suspended players are ineligible for awards, so be it. Retroactively, adopting a "one time amendment" to deal with this situation is just silly, and I haven't seen a reasonable defense of it in 120+ posts.
   123. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 22, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4243056)
I'm pretty sure that the Olympians don't care too much about the actual medal that they get, it's about the fact that it means that they won.


So you've never actually watched any Olympic medal ceremonies, or interviews with Olympic medal winners, or anything like that, have you?

Anyway, I'm going to reiterate the point I tried to raise on the previous page:

...one-time exceptions seem like a ham-handed way to deal with statistical leaderboards. If your motivation here is a belief that players caught using PEDs should not receive awards, then I don't know why you'd find this one time, post hoc, ad hoc resolution particularly satisfying.


Wouldn't it have been far better for MLB to have modified rule 10.22(a) to simply state that no player who fails to accumulate the requisite number of PA due to suspension shall be considered to have qualified as an individual batting, slugging or on-base percentage champion?
   124. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4243099)
Wouldn't it have been far better for MLB to have modified rule 10.22(a) to simply state that no player who fails to accumulate the requisite number of PA due to suspension shall be considered to have qualified as an individual batting, slugging or on-base percentage champion?


Yes. But the good should never be the victim of the perfect.
   125. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 22, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4243131)
Fine. But how about the sorta-kinda-OK-maybe? Should that be the victim of the perfect?
   126. Rennie's Tenet Posted: September 22, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4243228)
Wouldn't it have been far better for MLB to have modified rule 10.22(a) to simply state that no player who fails to accumulate the requisite number of PA due to suspension shall be considered to have qualified as an individual batting, slugging or on-base percentage champion?


I think it's very likely that if MLB had actually punished Melky with disqualification, and if the Players Association filed a grievance against that, then the Players Association would win. I don't really see how anyone can look at this situation without starting at the point that both Melky and the union saw this as the best outcome. When I first read this story, my first thought was, "Good, it looks like the union is taking some ownership of the testing policy," which after all probably helps protect the longterm health of the players as a whole.
   127. Walt Davis Posted: September 22, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4243273)
it's more complicated to strip the Giants of wins, or of Melky's hits and their contribution to those wins.

Finally we know what WAR is good for!

Sorry Giants, you now have 83.4 wins.
   128. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 22, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4243291)
Wouldn't it have been far better for MLB to have modified rule 10.22(a) to simply state that no player who fails to accumulate the requisite number of PA due to suspension shall be considered to have qualified as an individual batting, slugging or on-base percentage champion?


Well, if you want to be fair, Cabrera failed to reach 502 PA not because of the suspension (because that was a future event not yet affecting his current outcome), but because of the 4 games he didn't play earlier in the season (prior event affecting current outcome). If he'd played those games, what would have MLB done in this case?

Technically (drink!), his failure to reach 502 PA was NOT because of the suspension, but prior missed games.
   129. Booey Posted: September 22, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4243296)
You can strip a runner of a gold medal, but it's more complicated to strip the Giants of wins, or of Melky's hits and their contribution to those wins.


Which is why no one has suggested that MLB strip Melky or the Giants of anything. They just won't recognize him as being the batting champion if he goes on to lead the league.

But like I said earlier, I'm pulling for McCutchen and Posey to catch fire in their remaining games and make this entire silliness moot.
   130. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4243312)
It's saying that he doesn't have enough PA's to qualify, not that anyone who tests positive will have their numbers ignored (which I would never in a million years support). If he'd had one more PA, this wouldn't have been able to happen.

Why not? The rule giving extra PAs to players for the purposes of calculating qualifying BA is enshrined no less officially than any other requirement.
Apparently the rulebook now says, "You must have 3.1 PAs for each game played by your team. If you have fewer than that, but adding 0-fors to get you up to the minimum number still results in you having a higher average, you will be the batting champion, except in 2012 for people named Melky Cabrera."
   131. Booey Posted: September 22, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4243317)
Apparently the rulebook now says, "You must have 3.1 PAs for each game played by your team. If you have fewer than that, but adding 0-fors to get you up to the minimum number still results in you having a higher average, you will be the batting champion, except in 2012 for people named Melky Cabrera."


...or for those who tested positive for steroids during that same season.

I still disagree with this move my MLB. But I'm not gonna shed a lot of tears for Melky.
   132. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4243336)
To go all lawyer on this, there's generally a duty to bring good faith to a matter. You can't get caught cheating under a rule, and then turn in the other direction and expect to get the benefit of your cheating. Institutions are allowed to defend themselves a little.
He wasn't caught cheating; he was caught using steroids.
   133. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4243337)
And what's that?
   134. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4243339)
A politically unpopular substance.
   135. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4243341)
Your client wants to know the basis for his suspension, counselor. Earn your fee.
   136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 22, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4243361)
I told you: politics.
   137. Morty Causa Posted: September 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4243364)
Say good night, David.
   138. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 23, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4243399)
I'm curious to hear Sean Forman's take on all this, and how it will be listed (in the "Leaderboard" section, or the black ink indicators).
   139. Booey Posted: September 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4243588)
I'm curious to hear Sean Forman's take on all this, and how it will be listed (in the "Leaderboard" section, or the black ink indicators).


My guess is that it would just be considered as though he didn't have enough PA's to qualify.
   140. BDC Posted: September 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4243593)
Which is why no one has suggested that MLB strip Melky or the Giants of anything. They just won't recognize him as being the batting champion

Sure; which simply pegs this kind of "cheating" at the level of seriousness with which MLB currently takes it. It's serious enough to lose an individual some playing time and some pay, but not to trigger an investigation into how ill-gotten the Western Division title might be. So it's really not the "cheating" issue that strips Melky of his batting championship, I think. The Giants still get the full "benefit," if there was any.
   141. BDC Posted: September 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4243596)
I do notice that on the "CBB-Ref" website, Villanova is listed as having been national men's runner-up in 1971, and Howard Porter as being what they called the "MOP" of the tournament. This is not the way the NCAA sees it, but it's of course what actually happened. I think there's a place for what actually happened on a stat website. Set up the algorithm and run the results; let someone else editorialize.
   142. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4243640)
I do notice that on the "CBB-Ref" website, Villanova is listed as having been national men's runner-up in 1971, and Howard Porter as being what they called the "MOP" of the tournament. This is not the way the NCAA sees it, but it's of course what actually happened. I think there's a place for what actually happened on a stat website. Set up the algorithm and run the results; let someone else editorialize.
Exactly. Cabrera is (going to be) the batting champion. If MLB wants to put someone else's name on a plaque somewhere, that's MLB's prerogative, but it doesn't change reality.
   143. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: September 23, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4243654)
So you've never actually watched any Olympic medal ceremonies, or interviews with Olympic medal winners, or anything like that, have you?

And your opinion of it is that the actual medal is why the Olympians are emotional, and not the actual, you know, winning the event?
   144. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4243680)
Exactly. Cabrera is (going to be) the batting champion. If MLB wants to put someone else's name on a plaque somewhere, that's MLB's prerogative, but it doesn't change reality.

Actually no. The "Batting Champion" is a purely arbitrary construct of the MLB rules (you could pick any # of PAs, and BA excludes a random collection of things from the denominator).

There is no "natural" definition of "Batting Champion".
   145. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4243681)
And your opinion of it is that the actual medal is why the Olympians are emotional, and not the actual, you know, winning the event?

Did you know Gold Medals are <10% Gold? What a gyp!
   146. Ron J2 Posted: September 24, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4244008)
#144 Not only that, but MLB still considers Ty Cobb as having won the 1910 batting crown. Officially it's the result of a clerical error, but there's little question it's also a reaction to the last day shenanigans by the Browns' manager.
   147. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 24, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4244019)
Exactly. Cabrera is (going to be) the batting champion. If MLB wants to put someone else's name on a plaque somewhere, that's MLB's prerogative, but it doesn't change reality.


This remains a delusional point of view. Cabrera winning the batting championship no more represents "reality" than Nadzeya Ostapchuk of Belarus winning Olympic gold in the shot put does. I watched the event and she put the shot the furthest. Then her drug test came back positive and she was no longer the winner.

The principle is simple: The competitive validity of the event's "reality" is merely conditional. You play 72 holes at the Masters in the fewest strokes, you still may not win if you sign an incorrect scorecard (Roberto DeVicenzo, ca. 1968). You throw the shotput further than everybody else, you've conditionally won the event, but still may lose (Women's Olympic Final 2012). You beat Kentucky in a fantastic national basketball semifinal, you've conditionally won (Michigan 1993). You run 100m the fastest in the Olympic final, you've conditionally won (Ben Johnson 1988).

Cabrera conditionally hit .346. The condition failed.

Next.
Page 2 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
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2206 - 2:15pm, Apr 23)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(35 - 2:14pm, Apr 23)
Last: spike

NewsblogJ.R. Gamble: Albert Pujols' 500-Homer Chase Is A Bore, But That's Baseball's Fault
(51 - 2:13pm, Apr 23)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogMatt Harvey of New York Mets deletes Twitter account after controversial tweet
(13 - 2:11pm, Apr 23)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1060 - 2:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(8 - 2:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(484 - 2:09pm, Apr 23)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogMLB takes a swing at the video game business
(6 - 1:56pm, Apr 23)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(17 - 1:49pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogCameron: Numbers don't lie: The decline of Pujols is stunning
(221 - 1:46pm, Apr 23)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(5 - 1:33pm, Apr 23)
Last: esseff

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(195 - 1:29pm, Apr 23)
Last: zack

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(8 - 1:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogThe rise and fall of Ike Davis' New York Mets | Capital New York
(19 - 1:05pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(110 - 1:04pm, Apr 23)
Last: Blastin

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.2935 seconds
52 querie(s) executed