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, April 19, 2013

FanGraphs: Cameron: CC Sabathia and Pitching to the Score

Debugging Hugging Harold Reynolds

In that segment, Harold Reynolds cites CC Sabathia as an example of a pitcher who pitches to the score, noting that he performs differently when the game is on the line than when he’s just trying to get outs and has some runs to give up. While one will never be able to definitively prove or disprove the intent of a pitcher, given that we are left to only measure what they do rather than what they are thinking, Reynolds’ claim is testable. If Sabathia pitched dramatically better in close games than with a big lead, it would show up in the data.

It does not.

...And, it’s probably worth noting that this split is somewhat counter to the idea of pitching to the score. The general notion that Reynolds puts forth is that we need to look at pitcher wins because metrics like ERA penalize pitchers who give up more runs when they have a cushion, so we need an adjustment for the fact that their numbers are worse when they have the lead. In reality, pitchers pitch better when they have the lead, so that adjustment isn’t even necessary.

There is no evidence here that CC Sabathia’s ERA has been artificially inflated because of the fact that he allows meaningless runs to score when the situation makes those runs less harmful. There is evidence that Sabathia, like most pitchers, allows fewer home runs in close situations by pitching to the corners of the strike zone, but it doesn’t change the batters overall results much. From what we can tell, CC Sabathia pitches like CC Sabathia, whether the game is 10-0 or 1-0.

Repoz Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:23 PM | 25 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: sabermetrics

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. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4419792)
I do not doubt that pitchers with good leads "pitch to the score".... having said that, I doubt it makes any difference, and I don't see anything in the article that would actually study the situation.

A person pitching to the score, usually means with a good lead (I would say that a good lead is one in which the tying run is not on deck) that the pitcher throws up more fastballs to allow the ball to be put in play so that he can go deeper into the game. Don't look at era, you would want to look at pitchFX for this type of data.

1. Does his pitches per plate appearance go down when he has a comfortable lead
2. Does his pitch repertoire change in those situations?

You could also probably look into situational pitching, if someone wants to argue about bearing down in tight situations. Again, pitchFX is probably the right tool for that.

I understand that they are trying to determine if this mythical ability is actually hindering Sabathia's rate numbers(era most notably) but I just don't think their methodology is really looking into pitching to the score.
   2. Bob Tufts Posted: April 19, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4419928)
From my experience, you never take your foot off the gas when pitching a game. I never did it in my entire life.

You make the BATTERS give up first, as seen when the manager tells them to start taking the first strike and putting themsleves in a hole. After you notice that, then and only then do you merely throw a strike.

But once a batter takes and they are in a 0-1 hole, you bury them!
   3. silhouetted by the sea Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4420020)
Bob, it's great to get the opinion of a real pitcher on this type of stuff. I seem to remember Jack Morris using the pitching to the score argument, but would someone like C.C., in the middle of their career, ever make that claim.
   4. jacjacatk Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4420029)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=sabatc.01&year=Career&t=p#clutc

His slash line when pitching with a greater than 4 run lead does seem slightly worse than overall, and his walk rate is marginally better. Not that that's evidence that CC is any different than the average pitcher in this situation.
   5. bob gee Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4420047)
i've been hugely against people who say "pitching to the score" - i did a study of jack morris' career in all sorts of ways in the early 90s, and if i remember right, he pitched best when he was either up a few or down a few than when the game was close.

anyhow...

bob, if you're still on this post - have you read pitching in a pinch (matthewson)? because if what christy said rings true, then you want to save your hardest pitches against the best players / for more important situations (because you're going 9 innings). with a dead(er) ball and wider variance among players, i can see that being true.

but i'm not going through all the old boxscores to check it out.

any thoughts on that? thanks!



   6. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4420051)
bob, if you're still on this post - have you read pitching in a pinch (matthewson)? because if what christy said rings true, then you want to save your hardest pitches against the best players / for more important situations (because you're going 9 innings). with a dead(er) ball and wider variance among players, i can see that being true.


I think the current working theory is that was true in Mathewson's day, but isn't so anymore(and probably hasn't been true since at least integration) . The scrubs are much better players than they were in the past.
   7. Bob Tufts Posted: April 19, 2013 at 10:00 PM (#4420067)
Yes I read the book, but I'm with cardsfanboy on this one.

Just get the outs however you can. Why gear down aginst weaker players, making them slightly better than their actual performance would be and hope that you can somehow save yourself to get the best hitters out?
   8. Walt Davis Posted: April 19, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4420078)
No wonder Bob has a 1000 career winning percentage!

I'll agree and disagree with cfb. Reynolds is claiming that ERA will be misleading because CC will give up more runs so ERA (or I suppose RA would be better) is the appropriate thing to look at.

Does CC pitch differently with a comfy lead is a legit question to ask but if his ERA doesn't go up in those situations then his ERA is not misleading and Reynolds' point is wrong. And while Pitchf/x is probably the best thing you could use here, it doesn't go back very far ... one should be able to proxy "pitch differently" reasonably well based on K, BB and HR rates (esp solo HR rates).

One of my guesses is along the lines Bob hints at ... batters and umpires also seem to sometimes "work" to the score (which, yes, interferes somewhat with K, BB and HR rates). The other thing is that pitchers should almost always be trying to throw strikes. As noted in the excerpt, you want to avoid power spots when guys are on base but the general idea of "I will increase my strike percentage from 62% to 66% now that I have a 4-run lead" is a bit wacky.

Finally, these days it seems even odder that someone would pitch to the score. The starter is only going 7, maybe 8 anyway. If CC is going to pitch to the score, isn't that what Adam Warren, Shawn Kelley and Cody Eppley are for? And, indeed, each has 1 GF. OK, every once in a great while you might really need CC to go 8-9 to give the bullpen a rest but that will be rare enough that it's not going to impact his numbers.

Anyway, I'm quite willing to believe (given I believe I've witnessed it) that pitchers pitch differently with comfy leads -- or at least they did when pitchers were expected to go 9. But CC "pitching to the score" by becoming more of a low-walk BIP pitcher means he becomes the equivalent of Tim Hudson or, at worst, maybe Jake Westbrook for a few innings a year, not end of career Lima or Livan. If he takes one inning off per half of his wins and surrenders runs at the rate of 1/9 higher than his career, we're talking about 9-10 extra runs for his career so far which would lower his ERA from 3.49 to 3.46.

To put it another way, to get Jack Morris from his 105 ERA+ to a 115 ERA+ (about the low-end for HoF starters), you have to deduct 144 earned runs or more than half a run for each one of his wins and credit those to "pitching to the score". Those are "extra runs" he wouldn't otherwise have given up. That is he was a true 3.60 ERA pitcher who turned into somewhere between a 6 to 8 ERA pitcher for 1-2 innings in every one of his wins. If about half of his wins were close enough he wouldn't have been pitching to the score, he'd be giving up 1 run extra per easy win so he'd have been like a 12 ERA pitcher in those "easy" innings.

Let me clarify what I've done. CC wins about 18 games a year. We're saying that when he has a big lead and it's in later innings, he pounds the strike zone and gives up more runs but not so many he would lose. He doesn't do this when the game is close. I don't know how many close/easy wins he has but assume that about half his wins are easy wins. But how many innings does he get to ease off? I assume just 1, maybe occasionally 2. I'm calling that 9 innings a year.

Suppose CC is "normally" a 3.50 ERA pitcher. When he pounds the strikes zone, he's a 4.50 ERA pitcher. So in those 9 innings, instead of giving up 3.5 runs, he gives up 4.5 runs or 1 extra run per season. As I noted, that has virtually no impact on his career ERA.

Morris had 254 wins and 175 complete games (some of which were close losses). Again, I don't know how many of those were comfy leads but even if all 254 wins were easy and he pitched to the score in 2 innings of each, that's 508 career PttS innings and he would have had to give up 144 more runs or 2.5 extra runs per 9 innings. So, at an absolute minimum, Morris was about a 3.50 ERA pitcher "normally" but a 6.00 ERA pitcher when PttS. Unpossible. If you reduce his number of PttS innings, he has to become astronomically crappier when PttS.

Pitchers probably do pitch to the score. But they don't get many opportunities and they don't become 12 ERA pitchers when they do so it has virtually no impact on their career ERA numbers.
   9. Squash Posted: April 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM (#4420095)
Walt that's a great post, and article-worthy.
   10. Bhaakon Posted: April 20, 2013 at 01:59 AM (#4420200)
His slash line when pitching with a greater than 4 run lead does seem slightly worse than overall, and his walk rate is marginally better. Not that that's evidence that CC is any different than the average pitcher in this situation.


Wouldn't we expect this to be so from simple fatigue? Sure teams do occasionally put up a 5 spot in the first inning, but usually big leads are the results of multiple innings of scoring, which means that you're more likely to see them later in the game when the starter is facing the lineup for the second or third time (particularly since managers have a tendency to stretch out their starters and rest their pens wit a big cushion). It seems to me that this would be at least as compelling an explanation as a conscious effort to pitch to the score.
   11. bjhanke Posted: April 20, 2013 at 05:54 AM (#4420211)
I had always figured that the reason Christy Mathwson was able to get away with his style of pitching was that, if you made a horrible mistake in 1908, even a GOOD hitter was not going to hit a homer, much less a bad hitter. That stopped being the case, for the good hitters, in the 1920s-1930s, but there were still a lot of guys who had no power. The 1950s were probably the watershed, and it's just gotten worse since then. So, just in case Bob is still with this thread, what do you think? Would you have been more inclined to ease off when pitching with a decent lead to a hitter who had zero power? Your previous posts don't sound like it. They sound like a pitcher who is focused on getting as many outs in as few batters faced as possible, which means destroying the weak hitters with the same stuff that you feed the good ones. I can't pitch at all (in spite of having pitched several college-intramural softball games, with hilarious results), but the second option sounds better to me. - Brock Hanke
   12. Swedish Chef Posted: April 20, 2013 at 06:13 AM (#4420213)
It might be an unconscious thing, the pitcher just gets a little comfortable and a bit sloppy with a big lead and no one on.
   13. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: April 20, 2013 at 07:19 AM (#4420220)
brock

that is what many observers have noted. certainly bill james wrote about the impact of the home run on how pitchers approached games.

and i grew up listening to radio guys talk about and with pitchers on how the home run changed they way they pitched.

so yes, that is correct
   14. bob gee Posted: April 20, 2013 at 08:25 AM (#4420226)
thanks bob and cfb! and brock for reopening the bigger question about how pitchers pitch.

i'm trying to think of other books written by pitchers in the 50s/60s (brosnan, bouton) and can't remember them pitching to the score.

tried to find the article, couldn't find it. i did the research based off of the STATS annual books which had how people pitched in different situations.

one interesting term which came up when i checked it out - SDCN - or (i think, memory could be failing) stat drunk computer nerd.

#11/brock - if the "bad pitch=homer" theory is true, i'd expect it to change from the 60s (when 3b, ss, 2b, and c were still expected to be defense first) and then again in the 80s (3b and c were no longer weak sisters, and after cal ripken, ss/2b could be hitters as well).
   15. I Am Not a Number Posted: April 20, 2013 at 08:32 AM (#4420227)
It might be an unconscious thing, the pitcher just gets a little comfortable and a bit sloppy with a big lead and no one on.

Could there not also be an analogous unconscious sloppiness on the part of batters in these situations?
   16. BDC Posted: April 20, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4420245)
One factor here is surely that baseball is a low-scoring game. (Another is the lack of a clock.)

I can totally believe that pitchers of the 1960s never "pitched to the score," because the score was likely to be 3-1, and if you got a couple of men on base you were in quite a jam.

When run environments are higher, you get more 6-1 leads, but of course, it's also easier to score six runs, which inhibits one from letting up on the pedal (to borrow Bob Tufts's metaphor :)

If it's 15-1, just throw the damn ball over and hope your outfielders haul it in. But how often is it 15-1?
   17. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 20, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4420247)
i'm trying to think of other books written by pitchers in the 50s/60s (brosnan, bouton) and can't remember them pitching to the score.


I vaguely remember reading an interview with Bob Feller some years ago where he talked about holding off with his best fastball with a big lead. That'll all I got.
   18. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4420251)
One factor here is surely that baseball is a low-scoring game. (Another is the lack of a clock.)


That's the big one, and that's why analogies to basketball and football are meaningless. In basketball and football, there are frequently times when you no longer need to accomplish anything positive and you will still win the game. You don't have to make another tackle, you don't have to defend another shot. Hell, you don't even have to be there. If you are up by 20 with 30 seconds left, you could literally take your team off the court and you will still win. Baseball is not like that. No matter how much you are up, you still have to get the outs. In football, giving up another first down just means you are 10 seconds closer to winning. In baseball, giving up a hit does not advance you to the finish line one tiny bit.

   19. BDC Posted: April 20, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4420335)
you don't have to defend another shot. Hell, you don't even have to be there

Interesting. And in some other clockless sports that are played in units, there's a sense in which you have to keep playing but can wait out the opponent. In golf, you can (if you are a very good pro, obviously) play to make par with a big lead, and your opponent is forced to make birdies, then eagles, and then the round runs out; beyond some point, no golfer could catch up. In tennis, you can establish a lead early in a set and then play conservatively, just hold your serve. Baseball doesn't have those features; the potential score in every inning is unlimited. A fan might think, well, we're five runs up in the seventh, we can give up one here, two in the eighth, and then go to our closer and outlast 'em; but the guy(s) pitching the seventh and eighth sure can't think that way.
   20. Moeball Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4420438)
Harold Reynolds cites CC Sabathia as an example of a pitcher who pitches to the score


If Sabathia pitched dramatically better in close games than with a big lead, it would show up in the data.

It does not.


Well, duh.

Good grief, are we still on this stupid belief? I see the idiots are loose again. "Harold and the One-Notes" are singing the same old song and, as usual, they are badly out of tune. CC doesn't pitch to the score, Morris didn't, either, and neither does any other pitcher.

The only pitcher I've found in Major League history who was able to post a winning record when getting 2 runs or less of batting support (over a 5 year period) was Koufax from '62-'66. And even he couldn't maintain that over the course of his whole career. No regular starting pitcher who pitched at least 10 years in the majors ever had a winning record in his career with poor run support. NO ONE. EVER. As Casey used to say, "You could look it up". I know. I have.

   21. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4420474)
The only pitcher I've found in Major League history who was able to post a winning record when getting 2 runs or less of batting support (over a 5 year period) was Koufax from '62-'66. And even he couldn't maintain that over the course of his whole career. No regular starting pitcher who pitched at least 10 years in the majors ever had a winning record in his career with poor run support. NO ONE. EVER. As Casey used to say, "You could look it up". I know. I have.


Not doubting your research or anything. But pitching to the score has nothing to do with low scoring games. All proponents of pitching to the score are arguing for is that their pet pitcher may not have as good of peripherals/rate stats as other pitchers with a comparable games played(but lesser w/l record) is that because that in blowouts they didn't bother as much.

I agree with you that nobody in the majors actually does this enough to matter in the numbers, just don't think you are looking at the right subset of games to disprove this, if you are concentrating on the low scoring games.

Even acknowledging that there is something about low scoring games, the argument wouldn't be about whether they were better than .500, but whether they were better than expected in those type of games. In other words, what is Morris's record in 2 run games in comparison to other pitchers of a similar run environment. Or in comparison to other pitchers with a similar era?
   22. Squash Posted: April 20, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4420574)
I didn't pitch at nearly as high a level as Bob did but I was never, ever okay with giving up hits/runs no matter what the lead was, and I can't imagine any other pitcher is - a pitcher with that attitude would never make it to the mound in any sort of actual competitive situation, least of all the major leagues. You might lose focus on a guy or two but once they've put two guys on base you're not just going to keep grooving fastballs. Pitching vs. a hitter is personal - it's the two of you alone with everybody watching you. No pitcher with any sort of competitive spirit is going to allow themselves to get repeatedly beaten (which would be required to pitch to the score) just because they happen to have a big lead. Morris, who we're simultaneously being told was the ultimate gamer, doesn't seem like the type at all to allow the other batters to beat him repeatedly just because.

Plus baseball is a game of stats, and everybody's obsessed with their stats. No pitcher is going to blow up his ERA because eh. Definitely not major league studs, whose ability to put up a low ERA is directly tied to their paycheck.
   23. jdennis Posted: April 20, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4420600)
I've said this before. Pitching to the score should be seen as limiting the damage after a bad start. Keeping them at 6 when down 0-6 after 2, until your team only trails 6-4 when you leave in the 7th (and saving the relievers). That is the valuable pitching skill that is not reflected by ERA, not giving up 4 in the 8th when your team is up 8-0 because you're saving it for the next start and limiting bullpen use. Look for pitchers that do that if you want to discount someone's high ERA for a HOF ballot or something.
   24. Walt Davis Posted: April 20, 2013 at 07:44 PM (#4420739)
#18/19 -- good point. But I would argue that "pitching to the score" is reasonably similar to the golfer parring out. The basic idea behind PttS (if it exists) is for the pitcher to not take chances, to not try to make the perfect pitch, to just throw strikes. That's pretty much the equivalent of shooting par. Similarly, in the field, the team will take the sure out at first rather than try the tougher play to get the force. An inning and a hole played are not hugely different "clocks". It's true obviously that you can give up 6 runs in an inning while you can't lose more than 2 (or very, very rarely) 3 strokes in a golf hole so the analogy isn't perfect but the approach is the same.

The only pitcher I've found in Major League history who was able to post a winning record when getting 2 runs or less of batting support

In fairness, you need to remove the times the pitcher's team got shut out. Obviously nothing the pitcher can do to win that game.

But pitching to the score has nothing to do with low scoring games. All proponents of pitching to the score are arguing for is that their pet pitcher may not have as good of peripherals/rate stats as other pitchers with a comparable games played(but lesser w/l record) is that because that in blowouts they didn't bother as much.

Incorrect. It's a zero-sum game. If a pitcher's numbers are worse in blowouts they are obviously better in close games. And with Morris in particular, it is very much about the idea that Morris "knew how to win", that if his team only scored three, he bore down extra tough to limit the opponents to two. The argument is that Jack Morris knew how to protect a lead, whether it was a 6-run lead or a 1-run lead.

It is certainly true that this argument is only trotted out for certain pitchers. OK, in terms of the HoF I'm not sure it's ever been trotted out for anybody but Morris although I suppose he's the first guy who's had his win total "questioned". Anyway, the point I want to make is the odd (but common) argument style that this adjustment is only made for one guy. To compare Morris to, say, Stieb or Saberhagen, are we to believe that their ERA isn't inflated by pitching to the score?

I vaguely remember reading an interview with Bob Feller some years ago where he talked about holding off with his best fastball with a big lead.

This (and moreso the Mathewson quote) is not really what we're talking about. It's more about throwing more fastballs and not trying as hard to hit the corners, not about easing off on velocity necessarily. It's not about the pitcher saving his arm, it's about the pitcher reducing his walk rate ("make them hit their way on") and increasing his contact rate (get the game over faster). Granted, dialling it down from 96 to 92 might achieve those and maybe that's the context Feller was talking about.

One of the nice things about the Morris kerfuffle is that it's made me discover how solid a pitcher Dennis Martinez was. For those who don't know, here they are side-by-side (well...):

JM 3824 IP, 254-186, 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+
DM 4000 IP, 245-193, 3.70 ERA, 106 ERA+

On the one hand, don't get too worked up as Morris has 53 more CG (but 2 fewer shutouts), better CYA finishes, more AS games, much more postseason pitching so, yes, Morris was held in substantially higher regard at the time. On the other hand, we're talking about just 9 more wins and 7 fewer losses over 440 decisions.

For their careers, they are nearly identical in BF (Martinez just 600 ahead). Their overall lines:

JM 247/313/380
DM 256/312/386

So over their roughly 16,000 PA, Martinez recorded 16 more outs while giving up 96 more total bases.

Morris had about 9000 PA where the game was within 1 run while Martinez had 9400. Their lines in that situation were 244/313/371 vs 253/316/382 so Morris was a smidgen better there (27 more outs, 99 fewer TB).

They both had only about 1500 PA with a margin >4 (could be a big deficit but presumably most are with a big lead). In those spots, Morris put up a 249/310/389 line (mildly worse results) while Martinez put up 292/331/439 which are much worse results. Morris' career K/BB was 1.78 and it went up to 1.95 in those spots; Martinez career was 1.84 and he went up to 2.14. They don't give IP exactly but using (AB-H)/3 as a proxy, Morris gave up 156 runs in about 345 IP (4.07 RA/9) and Martinez gave up 168 runs in about 327 IP (4.62 RA/9). Those compare to career rates of 4.27 RA/9 and 4.13 RA/9 respectively. (the split doesn't give earned runs)

If anybody was giving up extra runs when it didn't matter, it was Martinez. His RA/9 went up half a run (or more) while Morris's actually went down a bit. Possibly the Martinez games were more often games where he was down by more than 4 and getting knocked around.

Morris did possibly step it up in close & late situations (however those are defined). In 1852 PA, he gave up a line of 238/297/355; Martinez was a bit better than his overall but not as much: 250/301/369. I suppose better numbers are to be expected given a starter is generally in close/late situations only when they've been pitching well for the first 6-7 innings (i.e. they are on that day) but Morris was better than Martinez here.

So, as everybody knows, Morris didn't pitch particularly worse in blowout situations and, anyway, they constitute only about 10% of his career PA against (and some of those would be in innings early enough he wouldn't want to be PttS yet anyway). You could go with margins greater than 3 if you want but that adds only another 7% of PAs. There is more evidence that Martinez PttS but this was never considered for him to my knowledge -- one and done in HoF voting. But even if we considered it, it's just 10% of his PA too and that extra half-run per 9 innings only amounts to 18 runs over his whole career which, even if they were all earned, only lowers his career ERA from 3.70 to 3.66, raising his ERA+ from 106 to 107.

You don't need to demonstrate whether Morris or CC or Martinez or anybody pitched to the score -- it's simply not possible for such behavior to substantially impact career performance.

In the end, Morris has a very high win total despite only mildly above-average performance for the same reason Martinez did -- their teams scored a lot of runs.
   25. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 21, 2013 at 01:03 AM (#4420929)
So, for some reason I just looked at BBRef's neutralized stats for Jack Morris. It claims he'd have a significantly losing record, lifetime. A 195-218 W-L record, with a 4.28 ERA. Has anyone told SugarBearBlank?

--Anyone else suddenly getting a raft of annoying, baseball related popups despite having a popup blocker on?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(6 - 3:39am, Dec 19)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4880 - 3:33am, Dec 19)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogPadres Acquire Derek Norris – MLB Trade Rumors
(15 - 2:52am, Dec 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(59 - 2:45am, Dec 19)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1352 - 2:09am, Dec 19)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogSaint Pete City Council Tells Rays NYET!
(3 - 1:57am, Dec 19)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(25 - 11:39pm, Dec 18)
Last: Barnaby Jones

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9159 - 11:35pm, Dec 18)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(61 - 11:25pm, Dec 18)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(707 - 11:22pm, Dec 18)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(42 - 9:34pm, Dec 18)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(41 - 9:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: Jeff Frances the Mute

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(103 - 8:09pm, Dec 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogHow Will MLB Handle Big Changes With Cuba? - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 6:13pm, Dec 18)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(56 - 6:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

Page rendered in 0.3952 seconds
50 querie(s) executed