BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Faith and Fear in Flushing: Prince: Kooz For Cooperstown

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Faith and Fear in Flushing: Prince: Kooz For Cooperstown

Koosman in…Bunning out? Hell, I didn’t even know Koosman was a Republican!

Granted. But I’m still stumped as to why Jim Bunning was considered such a legitimate candidate for so long and why Jerry Koosman, his statistical doppelganger and the No. 12 Greatest Met of the First Forty Years, received all of four votes. Ideally, I’d simply throw Bunning out of Cooperstown, but they don’t do that sort of thing.

If the Doc Gooden watch had kept better time, this wouldn’t be an issue here today.

Repoz Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:10 PM | 49 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets

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. schuey Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:24 PM (#1814254)

Cooperstown does not need pitchers who averaged 13-12 in a season. It does not really need those who averaged 13-11 either but Bunning needs a payoff for being part of a famous collapse.

2. DCA Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#1814259)

Cooperstown does not need pitchers who averaged 13-12 in a season.

Goodbye Nolan Ryan ...

3. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#1814280)

Of course, Ryan average 13-12 over 27 seasons.

4. Dizzypaco Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#1814327)

Its very misleading to say that Bunning was an 13-11 pitcher on average. He won 17 games or more 8 times in 11 years. The article understates his case. Bunning had a concentrated period (1957 to 1967) when he was among the better pitchers in baseball virtually every year. Koosman was good here and there, but wasn't as consistent. Bunning is in the hall of fame because of his 11 year peak, which Koosman didn't have.

5. BDC

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1814357)

The article suggests that Bunning's personal popularity and political skills helped him into the Hall. Actually his personal obnoxiousness probably got him noticed both by the voters of Cooperstown and the voters of Kentucky. He has no particular glad-handing ability, but people are a bit afraid of him (160 hit batsmen, more than twice as many as Koosman!), and that has taken him a long way.

6. Steve Treder Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#1814359)

Koosman was good here and there, but wasn't as consistent.

Nor as durable. Koosman's arm was always a bit iffy. Bunning was a horse.

Bunning's HOF credentials are debatable, yes. But he was a clearly better pitcher than Koosman.

7. JPWF13

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#1814400)

He won 17 games or more 8 times in 11 years...Bunning is in the hall of fame because of his 11 year peak

Ok- to be annoying I took Bunning's 8 best season (by ERA+):
141-89 ERA of 2.75 in 2237 innings (136 ERA+)

(neutral run support should have yielded 149-81: I don't know what his actual RS was but the Historical Abstract says Bunning was pretty unlucky)

Koosman's 8 best: 133-94 ERA of 1958 innings (127 ERA +) (neutral run support should have yielded: 140-87).

Close- but Bunning's ahead.

Koos once managed to go 8-20 with an ERA+ of 108- now that's a neat trick.

8. The District Attorney Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:31 PM (#1814403)

I... does this person speak English? Did they read their own article? Do they have some sort of multiple personality disorder?

In his illuminating 1994 book The Politics of Glory, Bill James warned against falling head over heels for the "If-One-Then" argument, which goes "if this player is in and he's comparable to this other player, then the other player should be in, too." What it gets you, he wrote, is a Hall of Fame filled with players whose main qualification is they are all better than the worst Hall of Famer. Comparisons of the "If-One-Then" nature, James said, can help you make a case but they shouldn't be the case.

Granted.

Jerry Koosman is a Hall of Famer. He should be in anyway.

Why? Because Jim Bunning is. And if Bunning is, there's no good reason Koosman isn't.

Title: Kooz for Cooperstown

It's not so much that I think Jerry Koosman belongs in the Hall of Fame. Sure, I'd like to see it, but that's not my point.

I can't imagine how any of this can be rendered coherent, unless the only point here is to see how often a person can contradict themselves in one article.

BTW, clearly Koosman has to at least wait in line behind the 11th greatest Met of all time, Mookie Wilson.

9. David Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#1814458)

Wow, it really was all Buckner's fault for the Red Sox losing the Series in '86. If he would have just been content with getting a single, then there is no way Wilson would have hit that grounder. Stupid hustling veteran...

10. Sexy Lizard Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#1814469)

Actually his personal obnoxiousness probably got him noticed both by the voters of Cooperstown and the voters of Kentucky. He has no particular glad-handing ability, but people are a bit afraid of him (160 hit batsmen, more than twice as many as Koosman!), and that has taken him a long way.

So if a Kentucky resident doesn't vote for Bunning he risks getting knocked down in the batter's box?

11. Boots Day Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1814496)

I wonder how many franchises' twelfth-best player from the past forty years is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. I'm guessing it's roughly zero.

12. Infinite Joost (Voxter)

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#1814514)

So if a Kentucky resident doesn't vote for Bunning he risks getting knocked down in the batter's box?

No, they risk putting a Democrat in office, which is apparently so abhorrent to Kentuckians that they keep voting for Bunning despite the fact that he has pretty clearly mislaid his marbles.

13. BDC

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#1814537)

So if a Kentucky resident doesn't vote for Bunning he risks getting knocked down in the batter's box?

:-D No, it's more like "We need an SOB in Washington so that New York City doesn't stuff their pockets with all that Homeland Security money ..."

14. Jesse Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#1814791)

I wonder how many franchises' twelfth-best player from the past forty years is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. I'm guessing it's roughly zero.

Sadly, the Yankee's 12th-best player over the last 40 years will probably make the Hall. (Sadly because I'm a Yankee hater, not because that player, whoever they might be, is a bad player.)

The same might be true for other franchises, although none come to mind after fifteen seconds of cursory consideration.

15. kthejoker Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#1814796)

I wonder how many franchises' twelfth-best player from the past forty years is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. I'm guessing it's roughly zero.

Reggie
Roger Clemens
Dave Winfield
Catfish Hunter
Mariano Rivera
Don Mattingly
Thurman Munson
Bernie Williams
Goose Gossage
Whitey Ford
Mickey Mantle
Bobby Bonds

I guess Bernie's #12. And if you didn't focus solely on their Yankee greatness, tack on Tommy John, John Wetteland, Wade Boggs, Phil Niekro, Gary Sheffield.

16. kthejoker Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#1814817)

Alternatively, for BoSox fans:

Eckersley
Fisk
Rice
Dwight Evans
Clemens
Schilling
Manny
Pedro
Boggs
Yaz
Luis Tiant
Fred Lynn

With Lynn probably a solid #12. You could throw in Tony Perez, Jeff Reardon, Mo Vaughn, too.

17. Sean McNally Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#1814847)

Reggie
Roger Clemens
Dave Winfield
Catfish Hunter
Mariano Rivera
Don Mattingly
Thurman Munson
Bernie Williams
Goose Gossage
Whitey Ford
Mickey Mantle
Bobby Bonds

I guess Bernie's #12. And if you didn't focus solely on their Yankee greatness, tack on Tommy John, John Wetteland, Wade Boggs, Phil Niekro, Gary Sheffield.

Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez say hello! Also, Mantle and Ford were both essentially cooked by 1965, so let's leave them off this list, shall we?

<u>Yankees Top 12 - 1965-2005</u>
1. Roger Clemens
2. Alex Rodriguez
3. Dave Winfield*
4. Mariano Rivera
5. Catfish Hunter
6. Ron Guidry
7. Goose Gossage
8. Derek Jeter
9. Bernie Williams
10. Don Mattingly
11. Craig Nettles
12. Thurman Munson

18. kthejoker Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#1814850)

And, to prove your point slightly silly, here is (a pretty decent) list of Florida's 12 best players in franchise history (spanning a whopping 10 years):

Jeff Conine
Carlos Delgado
Josh Beckett
Rob Nen
Miguel Cabrera
Dontrelle Willis
Luis Castillo
Cliff Floyd
Derrek Lee
Gary Sheffield
Kevin Brown

And excusing Conine, I'd bet that most of these players received legitimate HoF consideration when they retire - some more than others, but not a shabby list for only 10 years of play.

19. BDC

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1814859)

Pudge
Raffy
Juan Gonzalez
Ruben Sierra
Jim Sundberg
Charlie Hough
Kenny Rogers
Nolan Ryan
Rusty Greer
Buddy Bell
Toby Harrah
Alex Rodriguez

20. BDC

Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1814868)

All kidding aside, I think the 12th-greatest Cub of the past 40 years actually just did get elected ...

21. Sam M. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1814884)

The fact that list puts Jerry Koosman behind John Franco makes me want to vomit.

He is my home-state Senator, so I feel justified in pointing out that Jim Bunning pitched in 0.0 post-season innings. Granted, he never gave up a post-season run, which some might argue is to his credit. Me, not so much. In my view, you better be Ernie Frigging Banks before you apply to the HOF with no post-season line on your resume. And Jim Bunning, you're no Ernie Banks.

Jerry Koosman contributed mightily to two divisions champs, two pennant winners, and a World Series title. Kooz went 4-0 in the post-season, including a brilliant performance in the 1969 WS.

Bunning was never, not at any time in his career, as good a pitcher as Koosman was in 1968-69. But the fact is, neither one of them belongs in the HOF.

22. Mefisto Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:12 PM (#1814921)

I wonder how many franchises' twelfth-best player from the past forty years is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. I'm guessing it's roughly zero.

My quick and dirty estimate of the Giants' 12 best over the last 45 years: Ba. Bonds, Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Perry, Cepeda, W. Clark, M. Williams, Bo. Bonds, J. Clark, Kent, Da. Evans. Yeah, I'd say he's a legit candidate.

23. Steve Treder Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#1814923)

Bunning was never, not at any time in his career, as good a pitcher as Koosman was in 1968-69.

Koosman, G GS CG IP ERA+
1968 35 34 17 264 145
1969 32 32 16 241 161

Bunning, G GS CG IP ERA+
1966 43 41 16 314 150
1967 40 40 16 302 149

Actually, yes he was, indeed he was better.

But the fact is, neither one of them belongs in the HOF.

Agreed, but if there's a case for either, it's for Bunning.

24. Sam M. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1814980)

Actually, yes [Bunning] was, indeed he was better.

He was more valuable because of the additional innings. But he wasn't as good a pitcher. (Haven't we had this debate before, Steve? Not about Bunning and Koosman, but about the general relationship between quality of performance and value?)

25. Steve Treder Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:59 PM (#1815038)

He was more valuable because of the additional innings. But he wasn't as good a pitcher. (Haven't we had this debate before, Steve? Not about Bunning and Koosman, but about the general relationship between quality of performance and value?)

We may have, and of course there is a distinction between skill and value. However, in the case of the comparison between Bunning and Koosman, it's pointless to attempt to say that Bunning "wasn't as good a pitcher" as Koosman. On what basis was he not? Bunning pitched as effectively in significantly more innings in Koosman's best years, thus delivering, as you acknowledge, more value. How again is that "not as good"?

26. Sam M. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#1815096)

Bunning pitched as effectively in significantly more innings in Koosman's best years, thus delivering, as you acknowledge, more value. How again is that "not as good"?

Well, that's just it: Bunning didn't pitch (quite) as effectively. Koosman was the better pitcher. Especially when you consider the 17.2 IP he added to his resume in October 1969 that were left out of your comparison. Those qualify as "valuable," no? I mean, talk about "high leverage!" ;-)

27. Steve Treder Posted: January 10, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#1815113)

Bunning didn't pitch (quite) as effectively.

Are you serious with this?

This was your original assertion: "Bunning was never, not at any time in his career, as good a pitcher as Koosman was in 1968-69."

This is Koosman's weighted average ERA+ for 1968-69: 152.6

This is Bunning's for 1966-67: 149.5

Are you seriously saying that a 3-point difference in ERA+ is a meaningful difference in effectiveness? You put that much emphasis on ERA+?

Bunning, incidentally, outperformed Koosman in these comparison seasons in WHIP, in BB/IP, and in SO/IP, despite handling a workload 20-25% greater. Are you seriously maintaining that Bunning "wasn't quite as effective"?

Especially when you consider the 17.2 IP he added to his resume in October 1969 that were left out of your comparison.

Go ahead and add it in; it still doesn't begin to make up the difference in value delivered between them. Especially when you consider that Koosman's post-season ERA in 1969 was over 4.00.

Come on, Sam. You really are better than this.

28. DCA Posted: January 10, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#1815126)

Sam, I usually agree with you, but the rate stats are so close that if part of the "goodness of a pitcher" is the ability to pitch more games and more innings per game, then Bunning was indeed a better pitcher. I believe that durability is as much as skill as BB/9, K/9, and other things within a pitchers' control which come together to have value. There's more to quality of performance than a pure rate stat like ERA+, or was Hank Aguirre 68-69 better than them both?

29. Sam M. Posted: January 10, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#1815156)

Especially when you consider the 17.2 IP he added to his resume in October 1969 that were left out of your comparison.

Go ahead and add it in

Did you miss the ";-)" that tried to signal I was joking about that part?

Here's my real position: Jerry Koosman was a better, more talented pitcher than Jim Bunning. Bunning, because he stayed healthier, got more out of his ability (and was more valuable in his 300+ IP years) over the years. Had Kooz not had his periodic arm troubles, his ultimate career accomplishments would have outpaced Bunning's. But that's just an explanation (and it may reflect my biases as a fan); it doesn't change the fact that, in the real world, Bunning put more up there than Koosman. So I agree with you on that.

30. Steve Treder Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:02 AM (#1815167)

Did you miss the ";-)" that tried to signal I was joking about that part?

Subtlety doesn't penetrate this thick cranium, Sam.

Jerry Koosman was a better, more talented pitcher than Jim Bunning.

Wonderful assertion. Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support it.

it may reflect my biases as a fan

Really?!? You think so?!?

;-)

31. Sam M. Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#1815189)

Jerry Koosman was a better, more talented pitcher than Jim Bunning.

Wonderful assertion. Unfortunately, no evidence exists to support it.

Well, since we don't live in the alternate reality in which Jerry Koosman was blessed with no arm trouble for a 20-year career, there can't really be "evidence" of what he might have accomplished, can there?

We do know that Koosman piled up a comparable ERA+ in a comparable number of innings, despite the health issues that struck him just when we would have expected him to be having his some of his peak seasons. Had 1970-72 been more in keeping with the prior years and those that followed, his career accomplishments would have outpaced Bunning's. I think that's a reasonable view, even if it must always remain completely speculative.

32. Steve Treder Posted: January 11, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#1815213)

Well, since we don't live in the alternate reality in which Jerry Koosman was blessed with no arm trouble for a 20-year career, there can't really be "evidence" of what he might have accomplished, can there?

Well, neither do we live in the alternate reality in which Jim Bunning was blessed with no injuries for a 20-year career. We don't know what he might have accomplished in a perfect world, either.

Had 1963 and 1968 been more in keeping with the prior years and those that followed, Bunning's career accomplishments would have outpaced Koosman's by an even greater margin than they do.

We do know what both did accomplish, given their real-world limitations of talent and durability. If you want to play "what if" in a comparison between two players, it's only fair and reasonable to apply it to both parties.

33. Barca Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#1815287)

"Well, since we don't live in the alternate reality in which Jerry Koosman was blessed with no arm trouble for a 20-year career, there can't really be "evidence" of what he might have accomplished, can there?"

I guess the Hall of Fame will have to deal with this universe then, won't it?

"The fact that list puts Jerry Koosman behind John Franco makes me want to vomit."

Mickey Mantle being listed eleventh didn't turn you off these lists altogether then?

34. WillYoung Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#1815292)

That was a fun exercise that I want to join in:
1. Rod Carew
2. Harmon Killebrew
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Kirby Puckett
5. Tony Oliva
6. Chuck Knoblauch
7. Frank Viola
8. Brad Radke
9. Jim Perry
10. Johan Santana
11. Gary Gaetti
12. Rick Aguilera

35. Sweet Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#1815337)

Not sure what others' criteria are . . . I used 5 seasons with the team from 1965-2005 (so no Eck, Cey, or Madlock, among others), but considered pre-'65 stats and stats with other clubs in making the list.

1. Maddux
2. Sandberg
3. Sosa
4. Banks
5. B. Williams
6. Jenkins
7. Santo
8. Dawson
9. Sutter
10. L. Smith
11. Grace
12. Reuschel

36. Oil Can of Corn Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:57 AM (#1815342)

Will:

Gaetti over Hrbek?

37. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#1815349)

Let's see here (factoring in time with the team in a vague sort of way):

1. Mike Schmidt
2. Steve Carlton
3. Bobby Abreu
4. Larry Bowa
5. Darren Daulton
6. Garry Maddox
7. Greg Luxinski
8. Lenny Dykstra
9. Von Hayes
10. Pat Burrell
11. Chris Short
12. Dick Allen/Pete Rose

Nope, don't think it's gonna happen to the Phillies

38. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:14 AM (#1815373)

I would also like to suggest that the Phillies have the whitest All-Star team of any team over that span. Well, I don't know what race Chris Short was, but the point remains.

39. Flynn Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:25 AM (#1815452)

Chris Short be a cracker.

12 best Red Sox: 1960-2005:

1. Yaz
2. Roger
3. Evans
4. Boggs
5. Rice
6. Fisk
7. Pedro
8. Manny
9. Tiant
10. Lynn
11. Nomar
12. Stanley

40. Ben V-L Posted: January 11, 2006 at 10:04 AM (#1815651)

Cardinals

1. Gibson
2. McGwire
3. Carlton
4. Pujols
5. Ozzie
6. Brock
7. Sutter
8. Cepeda
9. Simmons
10. Edmonds
11. Rolen
12. Hernandez/Lee Smith

Not counting: Walker, Will Clark, Eckersley, Henke

The top 8 are in the Hall or will be. Simmons probably should be. Edmonds and Rolen - depends on their future performance. Hernandez and Smith probably shouldn't be, though neither would be a travesty. Honorable mention: Lankford and Hendrick.

41. Ben V-L Posted: January 11, 2006 at 10:05 AM (#1815652)

Oops! add Torre somewhere.

42. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: January 11, 2006 at 11:04 AM (#1815666)

OK I'm a bit late to the party but off the top of my head:

1) Rickey
2) Reggie
3) McGwire
4) Bando
5) Chavez
6) Eckersley
7) Zito
8) Tejada
9) Catfish
10)Giambi
11)Vida
12)Steinbach
13)Campaneris
13)Hudson
14)Stewart
15)Canseco
16)Tenace
17)Fingers
18)Rudi
19)Dwayne
20)Lansford

There must be a Koosmanian argument for at least 12 of these guys. I even left out Billy Williams, Damon, Parker, Goose, Baylor, Kingman, D. I used no math in coming up with this.

43. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 11, 2006 at 11:44 AM (#1815676)

As a Cardinal fan who's early on the soon-to-burgeon anti-Mulder bandwagon, I'm glad he's not on there...

Of course, that's because I'm an A's fan, too.

44. Roadblock Jones Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#1815703)

The fact that list puts Jerry Koosman behind John Franco makes me want to vomit.

Just so you understand, the list of "Greatest Mets" on that blog is ranked by the writer's assessment of their "Metliness" and not necessarily by their accomplishments.

Koosman currently ranks as the No. 3 all-time Met in a Crane Pool project created through analysis by season, adjusted based on team performance by season (a 1986 player is rewarded more heavily than a comparable player from 1966, etc.)

As of 2004 (Piazza, I believe, has advanced a few spots in these rankings):

1. Seaver
2. Gooden
3. Koosman
4. Strawberry
5. Franco
6. Alfonzo
7. HoJo
8. Cleon Jones
9. Piazza
10. Fernandez
11. Kranepool
12. Leiter
13. Hernandez
14. Darling
15. McGraw
16. Mookie
17. Grote
18. McReynolds
19. Matlack
20. Staub

45. Russ Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#1815728)

In his illuminating 1994 book The Politics of Glory, Bill James warned against falling head over heels for the “If-One-Then” argument, which goes “if this player is in and he’s comparable to this other player, then the other player should be in, too.” What it gets you, he wrote, is a Hall of Fame filled with players whose main qualification is they are all better than the worst Hall of Famer. Comparisons of the “If-One-Then” nature, James said, can help you make a case but they shouldn’t be the case.

This paragraph shows the blessing and the curse of Bill James. The blessing was that the man could take extremely complicated issues, understand them, and then boil them down into their most important elements, until all that was left was a short, transparent statement that everyone could understand.

The curse of Bill James is that many people in statistical analysis later (and people who wished that they could do statistical analysis) tried to mimic his gift having neither the writing talent to do so nor the analytical talent to be right as often as James was.

46. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#1815842)

And, as with this article, many people have learned that Bill James is reasonable, and in order to seem reasonable themselves they quote a paragraph or two of Bill James material before writing whatever random nonsense they were going to write anyway.

"According to Bill James, Brian Downing was at least as valuable a player as Jim Rice. The average fan, however, gave more weight to statistics than intangibles. With that in mind, I would like to examine the self-evident hypothesis that Jeter is teh hawt secks."

47. WillYoung Posted: January 11, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#1815892)

Gaetti over Hrbek?

Oops, I had Hrbek initially on there and replaced him with Knoblauch with the intention of sliding him down a spot, unfortunately I forgot. I would remove Aguilera from the list then.

48. JPWF13

Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1816055)

<i>"According to Bill James, Brian Downing was at least as valuable a player as Jim Rice..."

Downing was a heck of a player: 370/425 OPS+ of 122 over 9309 PA

Rice: 352/502 OPS+ of 128 over 9058 PA

Rice had a higher peak, Downing had more defensive value (not saying much)-

Roughly comparable in hindsight- they weren't seen that way when they were playing of course.
All of Rice's value was locked up in Avg/HR/Rbi and he had a homepark + teamates who helped in those categories (esp Avg & RBI)

Downing simply got on base more and had enough power to be useful...

49. Kirby Kyle Posted: January 11, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#1816150)

1. Frank Thomas
2. Carlton Fisk
3. Harold Baines
4. Robin Ventura
5. Magglio Ordoñez
6. Wilbur Wood
7. Mark Buehrle
8. Jack McDowell
9. Ozzie Guillen
10. Ray Durham
11. Paul Konerko
12. Alex Fernandez

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Faith and Fear in Flushing: Prince: Kooz For Cooperstown

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics