User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7741 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: March 05, 2010 at 05:01 PM (#3473300)2. CMW, he of 42 IPs and 45 ER, who also got tagged big time on April 18th (8 earned runs in 1.1. innings), is no longer with the Yankees.
In any case, ignoring that one day, their Pythag goes from 95 wins to 97 wins. It's better, but it's still way off of their actual record.
In fairness then, don't you drop their biggest wins of the year too/ You don't get to drop one side, and not the other. i would guess that when you find big slaughters on the other side (where they win), the pitchers for the badley beaten teams aren't around any more either.
I make this comment every year, but it's true every year, too:
No one PLANS to have a guy on their roster be totally useless and give up a million runs (okay maybe the Royals do). And yet, every year, even the very best teams end up giving innings to guys who pitch terribly.
Going into last year, no one was saying: well, the Yankees are pretty solid but they're sadly going to waste 45 innings on this comically bad Wang character.
I pretty much guarantee this year that the Yankees will trot out some AAA guy with no real credentials and hope for the best. And so will every other team. And then in 12 months, someone reviewing the Yankees' prospects for 2011 will say "well, they'll be a little bit better than the projection, because the projection includes those horrible 4 starts from Jerry Sucksalot."
A) What everybody else said.
B) It's 18 runs -- less than two wins. Still leaves them well short of their actual record.
One is that yes, even the Yankees will have a game where some AAA or AAAA pitcher gets shellacked. However, when that AAA guy ONLY pitches 2.2. innings for you AND allows 10 ER for you, that bears mentioning.
The second situation is the CMW situation. The Yanks kept on giving the ball to CMW because they had a number of plans which depended on CMW's performance (somewhat similar to what happened to David Cone in 2000, though CMW was much worse than Cone in fewer innings). A pitcher who pitches like CMW did in 2009 does not usually get the ball for 42 innings from the NY Yankees.
Unless the Yankees bring up Kei Igawa to the Majors again, I don't see them having a CMW 2009 level of output pitcher on their staff in 2010.
BFan,
You are right, but there's nothing that leads me to believe that the Yankees will not have a game where they destroy their opponents, while the roster composition of the Yankees does lead me to believe that they will have no CMW 2009 type pitchers on their 2010 staff.
But blowouts are a pythagorean blind spot, and it's too facile of an analysis to overlook that.
Yes. They are relatively random and weirdly distributed, yet a single game can easily skew the pythag record by 1-2 wins.
Does anyone calculated a "capped" Pythag? Say, throw out all runs scored or allowed over 10 with a margin of victory/defeat >5. I'd think that "record" would be more predictive.
No, it doesn't, not really. It's still less than the error (or, if you prefer, uncertainty) in the Pythagorean projection anyway, so it's not important enough to really matter.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, every team is vulnerable, even the favorites.
The guy didn't get it, was unwilling to look at the data and I chose to simply not pay attention to his work anymore.
EDIT: Here's the link to the Lombardi page I mentioned:
http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2007/09/season_to_date.html
Pretty much. >100 wins teams usually either got lucky, or overperformed... or both, like the Yankees last year. 8/9 position players with OPS+ above their career averages, with only ARod marginally under. No crippling injuries (yeah yeah, Wang and Nady OMFG, and A WHOLE MONTH OF AROd... zzz). And of course outperformed their pythag.
You never - NEVER - use the previous season's wins or pythag wins as the baseline for the next season! Never! It's one thing to say that the Yankees were *played* (scored and allowed runs) more like a 95-win team last year than a 103-win team. That is correct. But it is incorrect to say that their *true talent* was that of a 95-win team, and that it is the baseline for measuring next year's performance.
All - ALL! - performances have to be properly regressed! All! The ONLY appropriate way to to use Pythag to guess a team's wins for a coming year is to sum projected (regressed) performances of individuals (with applicable adjustements for depth) convert to runs, and *then* apply Pythag. That is the *only* appropriate use of Pythag in a projection!
I respectfully disagree, especially because I strongly believe that when you can dig deeper and beyond what a specific statistic is telling you, you should (and I don't see you commenting on CMW, which perhaps means you agree with THAT point which I made in 9).
If you are going to delve into the Yankees season in such detail then there is no point in pretending that this discussion is about Pythag anymore. It's not. Now you're doing projections.
The Yanks won 7 games by 10+ runs. They lost 4. Why? Because they were a good team, not because blowouts are randomly distributed. Throwing out those results is crazy.
Everyone here is smart enough to just look at the Pythag, and use their judgement. You can't start throwing out certain results and minutely examining the performances of certain players and adjusting run totals. If you do, it's not Pythag anymore, it's a half-assed purposeless number.
CMWJohn Smoltz situation. TheYanksRed Sox kept on giving the ball toCMWJohn Smoltz because they had a number of plans which dependedCMW'sJohn Smoltz's performance (somewhat similar to what happened to David Cone in 2000, thoughCMWJohn Smoltz was much worse than Cone in fewer innings). A pitcher who pitches likeCMWJohn Smoltz did in 2009 does not usually get the ball for4240 innings from theNY YankeesRed Sox.I'm sorry, was there a sign on the door that said you can only talk about Pythag in this thread?
Because I thought this was BTF, where discussions often go on tangents.
(Or phrased differently, Perry is also projecting, as mentioned in 15, so why is my projecting unacceptable?).
But the more I examine my point the more it seems academic / semantics / whatever. So I apologize for being snippy. You will eventually account for CMW's absence and it doesn't matter when you do it.
Also, I understand the point in #15 but the precision suggested is beyond anything I'm interested in as a casual fan having a talk.
A 521-458 RA is equivalent to a .532 WP, if I'm using the Pythag formula correctly. But a 71-40 record is .640. Big difference, as in 12 "extra" wins.
The question is whether or not that sort of gap will revert to norm or not. That's anyone's guess, but here are two other facts to consider: In games last year where the Yankees were tied after 7 innings, they were undefeated. And the back end of the bullpen this year is likely to be Rivera, Hughes and Robertson. How far back to the "norm" are those three likely to regress?
God that's a cool back end of the bullpen. I love David Robertson aka the White Tom Gordon. I hope Melancon makes the final jump this year to join him.
I'm always amazed how people think some weird mathematical formula is exact and correct and actual performace is luck or over/under performance. Pythag, when you boil it down, is a simple regression tool. Teams that win more than they lose will exceed their pythag, teams that lose more than they win will undershoot their pythag, in the aggregate. The further away you get from 81 wins the larger the difference will be. The difference isn't an error in the real world but an error in the measuring device.
What I hope is that when they need a 6th SP (which they will, every team does) they use Hughes, rather than get infatuated with him in "teh 8th".
It makes some sense, if you don't believe that runs scored/or allowed when one team no longer cares about run prevention are not a good indicator of talent.
Sure, but since runs aren't evenly distributed and there's no reason to expect them to be or imagine that they might be, don't use pythag to talk about anything except some odd and imaginary universe in which such an event happened, which isn't MLB.
How about the odd and imaginary universe where Pythag is a more accurate predictor of future record than actual record is?
Wow, Robertson sure had some K rate last year. I hadn't realized. I don't know if they'll be great (they might be), but they'll be interesting.
I respectfully disagree, especially because I strongly believe that when you can dig deeper and beyond what a specific statistic is telling you, you should (and I don't see you commenting on CMW, which perhaps means you agree with THAT point which I made in 9).
Hmm...it's more like this - let's say CMW and Claggett are simply "bad" instead of "really, really, truly awful" - so maybe you get a 6 ERA out of those innings, which would mean a difference of, what, 25-30 RA? Except: 1) as others have pointed out, you can't just remove a bad performance from a team and say "okay, this should REALLY be the baseline" without removing, say, an unexpectedly good performance as well. 2) See post #18.
But most importantly, and the point I was trying to make before, isn't necessarily even that what you're doing by removing those performances or pointing them out is "wrong", per se, it's more like, if we're trying to look at what the Yankees will do next year, we're better off just projecting them based on what we know they are now rather than looking back at last year and trying to adjust for things like this, and that doing so was beside the point, in a way. I definitely didn't make this clear enough in my original post, so, well, there you go.
Their record looks better than last year's pythag, but how does it look compared to their components? I think the Yankees scored fewer runs than their hits/walks/homers/etc. indicate. Actually, I don't know if that is better or worse for predicting next year than just runs. But I don't think it's worth the effort to find out, because even if the 2009 Yankees were lucky, they won't be taking the field. To account for personnel changes you are better off looking at projections anyway. All the credible systems , I think, have the Yankees in first.
Of course that is no guarantee. Even if the Yankees are a true 97 win team and the Red Sox are 94, that is a small enough gap that it isn't hard to imagine something horrible happening.
As to the Yankees age, they still are an old team but they have made efforts to address this, such as bringing in Granderson and OBP Jesus instead of keeping Damon and Matsui. Vazquez isn't replacing Pettite but having him means the Yankees will not be destroyed if Pettite all of a sudden loses it.
Nothing is guaranteed, that's not exactly news. I think the closest to a guarantee you can make for next year is the Cardinals ruling the NL Central.
The Yanks Pyth number for 2009 is what it is, and nothing can change that. What I suggest doing is understanding WHY those numbers were like they were, to see if similar circumstances may apply in 2010 (since Perry is doing something similar by taking the 2009 Yanks Pyth record and pointing out how the Yanks will probably not beat their Pyth record).
I don't think the 2009 circumstances relative to CMW will apply in 2010 and THAT will have an impact in the performance of the 2010 Yankees.
And why is that? Why are the runs you score and allow one year meaningful to the runs you score and allow the next? Pythag is a simple regression tool. If you win 100 games one year you are less likely to win 100 games the next. A team that wins 100 games will probably have a pythag of around 96. Since a team that wins 100 is unlikely to win 100 the next year it is extremely easy for Pythag to be more "accurate" for the next season. But you don't need Pythag to be "accurate" you can simply subtract a win or more for teams above 81 wins and add a win or two for teams below 81 wins and presto you will magically be more accurate for the next year than actual wins for the current season.
Also, every team gets a performance like that from somebody. Just staying in the AL East, last year the Blue Jays had two pitchers who made two starts apiece and both compiled ERAs over 14. The Orioles had a guy who let in 19 runs in 7 1/3 innings. Someone pointed out Smoltz, who was almost as bad for the Red Sox as Wang was for the Yankees.
ok. Let's start this over. What you describe and what Perry is doing is called a misuse of Pythag. Post #27 however, suggests that Pythag is useless. It isn't. In season, it is a better predictor of future record than actual record. That was my point. That is where it is useful. I think you are arguing against what Perry was doing in the article, which is fine, because as I said, he was misusing it.
Didn't Wang put up the worst pitching record ever in his first few starts?
The Crawfish Boxes blog had an article in 2008 or 2009 which did something like that for all 30 teams during the 2008 season. I can't recall what the cut-off was for blow out losses, and I think another version was performed which also eliminated outlier wins (again, I can't remember the threshold). Surprisingly, this method reduced the average variation between actual W/L and Pythag W/L. It also produced quite a few exact results, if I recall. Whether that was just luck or whether it would reduce the variance between actual and Pythag W/L for other seasons, I don't know.
Nope, that distinction still belongs to Turanga Leela
Actually, no.
Didn't Wang put up the worst pitching record ever in his first few starts?
Yes
Wang had the worst three consecutive starts in the entire history of MLB.
6 IP, 23 ER, 34.50 ERA. And on 4/18 Anthony Claggett added 1.2 IP 8 ER to Wang's "effort".
So, nobody has ever gotten pitching like that: 7.2 IP, 31 ER, 38.75 ERA.
That looks remarkably like Mark Redman's pitching line for the Atlanta Braves in 2007.
Assuming, of course, no significant personnel changes -- like getting A-Rod back or getting rid of CMW. In which case, how useful is the Pythag before then?
Also, hasn't there been some study that having a truly exceptional closer/back end of the bull pen can help you beat Pythag? If I'm misremembering, please advise.
I think BP did this; don't know if it is a (relatively) conclusive study, but I think there was some evidence to this effect, and the Yankees have beaten their Pythag several times--once or twice by like 10-12 games--during the Rivera years.
The Angels, of course, beat their Pythag almost every year, and did so again last year with Brian Fuentes closing, so it would seem that their organizational hitting/baserunning approach does yield some benefit in tight ballgames.
Well, was their actual record (12-10 in April) a better predictor at that time?
A 521-458 RA is equivalent to a .532 WP, if I'm using the Pythag formula correctly. But a 71-40 record is .640. Big difference, as in 12 "extra" wins.
I know AROM already partially addressed this, but you can't put conditions on the sample of games you're using and then apply a formula that was developed to deal with an unconstrained sample.
I think BP did this; don't know if it is a (relatively) conclusive study, but I think there was some evidence to this effect, and the Yankees have beaten their Pythag several times--once or twice by like 10-12 games--during the Rivera years.
In fact since Torre's first year (1996) the Yankees have beaten their Pythag 12 out of 14 times, by a net total of 51 games. Which makes you wonder what the Pythag formula isn't taking into account.
Aura and Mystique.
Mystique and aura.
Again, don't very good teams tend to beat their Pythags (as a group) just like very poor teams under perform?
I'd bet that a formula "trained" on the vast bulk of teams in the 70-90 win range doesn't do well at the extremes. It probably has nothing to do with the particular construction of the Yankees, just the fact that the formula begins to break down at the extremes.
Mystique and aura.
And cokes. Don't forget cokes.
Strippers and coke do tend to go together.
Which makes it a perfect BBTF topic.
An alternative to simple pythag that handles the big game effect.
A skinny Panamanian fellow.
That is the same thing. In season or next it makes no difference. Why is how many runs you score and allow over a certain stretch of games going to tell you how many games you will win over a future stretch of runs scored and allowed?
It is still simple regression. If you take 100 teams at the 100 game point and all of them have gone 65-35 and pythag says they should have gone 60-40 it is quite possible that over the next 62 games they go .600 (ignoring the actual math for a moment)but that isn't because the pythag over those 100 says they should have gone .600 over those 100 games. If anything over those 62 games the pythag would probably say they should have gone .590 over those 62 games instead of .600. Pythag is a simple regression tool. Win more games than you lose and pythag will say you won too many. Lose more than you win and pythag will say you lost too many. I don't need a calculator and a formula to tell me that.
You realize that these statements are absolutely incorrect, right?
what about teams like the aught-deuce Red Sox that were 93-69, but had a pythag w-l of 100-62?
This is simply false. There are good teams that finish over .500 and still underperform their pythag, and there are sub .500 teams that overperform theirs. Sure, the further you get from .500, the less likely this is, but that says something about the talent density of MLB, not about the quality of the method. And it does still happen frequently evan in the 90+ win range (see cardinals and the 95 win dodgers (99 - 63 pythag) last year).
The reason pythag correlates more strongly with next seasons win total than actual wins, is because it filters out a lot of things that cause wins and losses that aren't repeatable, such as winning a large amount of 1 run games. Shouting "Regression! Regression!" doesn't change that...
Meanwhile, the AL West just had the best record of any AL Division for the 9th time in the past 10 years.
Odd really, pythag is constantly wrong, every single season but you guys one situation or a small group of situations where a team underperforms and win less games than expected and poofda I'm wrong and pythag is right. Well, pythag is wrong hundreds of times throughout history. There is an extremely small amount of teams that get 90 or more wins and underperform pythag.
The reason pythag correlates more strongly with next seasons win total than actual wins, is because it filters out a lot of things that cause wins and losses that aren't repeatable, such as winning a large amount of 1 run games. Shouting "Regression! Regression!" doesn't change that...
Well, I could talk about filters and such or I could say regression and I'd still be talking about the same thing. Again, why is scoring 800 runs and allowing 600 runs going to be a better indicator of how many games I'll win when I score 775 runs and allow 625 runs the next year?
Team A plays a year and they win 92 games. Pythag looks at their rs/ra and say they should have won 90 games. The next year they win 90 games does that mean pythag from the first year means anything? In the first year they scored 800 runs and gave up 700. The second year they scored 780 and allowed 710 and pythag for that year says they should have won 85 games. I understand there is correlation but where is the causation? Why does scoring and allowing 800/700 in year 1 cause you to win 90 games in year 2 even though you score/allow 780/710?
And yes, ignore the math since I'm at work and I'm not going to actually crunch the formula.
It took 88 wins to be the champion of the AL West.
It took 96 to be the champion of the AL East.
Edit: Nested blockquotes work in the preview window, but not in the actual post? Come on.
With unbalanced schedules it's generally easier to win games in divisions that don't include the Yankees and the Red Sox.
1) The Yankees don't have to play themselves.
2) You're not making the postseason when you finish behind two other teams in your own division, regardless of how good those teams are.
3) It's easier to win games when your opponents aren't as good, and 9 times in the past 10 years the average opponent in the AL East has not been as good as the average opponent in the AL West.
Having a tougher schedule--which is what happens when you play in a tough division with an unbalanced schedule--makes it more difficult to win games.
No it's not. There's actually research (albeit old research. The studies could stand to be redone and it's on my list of things to do) that backs up Perry's points.
Bill James found 7 indicators as to whether a team was likely to improve or decline:
1. change in record compared to the previous year. A team which improved considerably is good candidate to regress
2. team age. Young teams tend to improve. Old ones tend to decline
3. Record after August 1 Teams with a poor overall record but a good one after Aug. 1 are likely to improve.
4. comps between expected runs scored and actual (teams which score a lot more than expected tend to decline the next year)
5. W/L record (good teams tend to decline, bad teams tend to improve)
6. comps between projected wins and actual (teams which beat their pythags tend to decline)
7. Record of AAA team (obviously something of a proxy for talent in the system)
1) The Yankees' really old guys are mostly HoF-type guys.
2) I am not sure Rivera's and Pettitte's ages matter that much.
I think one could argue that age may be as much of a factor in Boston as it could be in New York this year.
Nah. They did it in 2000 (M's-A's), 2001 (M's-A's - without question the AL West that year was toughest division of the wild card era), 2002 (A's-Angels).
Touche.
The 2002 AL West might have been tougher.
That's actually the one I was thinking of. I was going off memory, and thought the 2001 season was the one with three teams with 90-plus wins.
This is the definition of a selection bias. The correct question to ask isn't whether teams with 90+ wins out-perform Pythag, it's whether teams with 90+ Pythag wins out-perform Pythag.
2) I am not sure Rivera's and Pettitte's ages matter that much.
I think one could argue that age may be as much of a factor in Boston as it could be in New York this year.
Pitcher age definitely matters much less than hitter age. Pitchers' aging curves are nowhere near as consistent.
It's also significantly easier to win a division, when you only have to finish ahead of 3 other teams instead of 4. The top 4 teams in the East have better average (3.25 wins) than the West. The East play each other 18 times instaed of 19. They had an extra 8 games against the Orioles, instead of a league averagish team. Seen as they should probably go about 5-3 against an average team, I find it hard to believe that those 8 games are worth 3.25 wins...
Edit: for massive typo abortion
Moreso. Yankees players don't age.
Dayn's now hiding from thousands of outraged Yankee fans. But we know where he lives.
And the answer would still be yes. A team that is expected to win 90 games will win around 92 games or so. A team that is expected to win 95 games will win 98 or so or whatever it is. I'm away from my spreadsheets, mom kicked me out of the basement. Doing pythag first and then looking at actual wins isn't going to give you anything different.
2007-2009 teams with >90 pythag wins that:
1) overperformed their pythag: 9
2) underperformed their pythag: 8
3) tied their pythag: 2
You're talking out of your ass.
(Opens spreadsheet)
Doing pythag first and then looking at actual wins isn't going to give you anything different.
Yes, it is. Over the last 30 full seasons (1977-2009, ignoring '81, '94, and '95), the 171 teams with 90+ PWins per B-R have on average out-performed Pythag by .374 games. Which is basically nothing - .586 W% vs. .584 PW%.
From 2002 to 2008 there have been 36 teams that were expected to win between 90 and 96 wins. Of those 36 teams 24 exceeded their pyth and 12 came up short. But of the 24 only 2 exceeded by less than 1 win so we'll call them tied. OF the 12 that exceeded 5 were within 1 win. So 22 exceeded, 7 tied, and 7 came up short.
There were 10 teams that were expected to win 97 or more wins and 4 of them actually won less than they were expected and 3 won more than expected.. Teams that are expected to win between 90 and 96 wins are 3 times more likely to exceed their pyth than come up short.
So yeah if you look at pythag first and then wins you'll get a slightly better ratio and at pythag's highest win totals it goes the other way whereas if you look at wins first you find 39 teams exceeding pythag to only 8 teams underperforming for all teams with 90 or more wins. And if you say, hey why you making a cutoff at 96 wins then it is 25 to 11.
Also 2009 must have had a ton of teams projected to get to 90 wins because 2007 and 2008 only have 10 teams projecting at that many wins or better. And I got 3 teams exceeding, 4 teams underperforming, and 3 teams under a win.
Assuming that you could find roughly the same results going back in time, what do you think explains the Yankees so consistently (12 of 14 years) outperforming their Pythag? Is it all just a random fluke, or is it all just Rivera? And if it's all just Rivera (plus a great setup man), then why can't the formula be tweaked to adjust for great closers? Doesn't that stat about the Yanks' undefeated record in games that were tied after 7 innings suggest something noteworthy?
I understand that Pythag is a quasi-predictive tool and that most great performances revert to the mean, but when you have such a key factor in close wins being so completely dependable year after year, I'm surprised that there isn't a way to incorporate that. It's almost as if they've been saying "he can't repeat himself" ever since Rivera's career began, and find themselves repeatedly kicking the air instead of the football.
Or, alternately, should we accept Pythag as a good predictive tool in general, but then always bet the over for the Yankees as long as we think Rivera (and Hughes and Robertson) will hold out?
The average team that exceeded their 90+ pythag did so by 3.4 wins. The average team that underperformed their 90+ pythag did so by 3.6 wins.
Teams that win a lot of games the vast majority of time overperform their pythag. Teams that pythag thinks should win a lot of games generally win more games than pythag expects.
I get 81 teams doing worse than expected and 52 teams doing better than expected. I'm willing to bet that it wil be around the same 3 win difference as we ll.
I get 86 over, 65, under, and 20 ties. The bad teams go 66 over, 92 under, and 24 ties.
But again, you're chasing an average margin of less than a win on both sides. Pythag may be off, but it's by a tiny amount.
It isn't by a win on both sides. It is over 3 wins on both sides.
If we aren't going to count this game, shouldn't the 15-0 beatdown of the Mets on June 14 be discounted as well?
Could this discrepancy from a 50/50 split be due to a random fluctuation? Not likely, at all. If you assume they should come from a binomial distribution with p=0.5, the probability you get this large of a difference or greater is about 5%. If you flip a coin 171 times, you will only get 96 or more heads 5% of the time. You get a similar result if you just ignore the ties, in case you are worried about those 20 seasons.
This is also reflected in the 0.374 # of wins average outperformance. If the standard error is really 3.5 games / 162, then over 171 seasons you'd expect the error to be something like 3.5/sqrt(171), which is about 0.27.
Still, this is not to say the over/underperformance issue is a BIG effect, but rather a SIGNIFICANT effect. You can read the size of the effect straight from the data: 96/171 is 0.56, so historically teams with more than 90 pythag wins overperform 56% of the time. I don't think it's hard to imagine any number of reasons why this might be the case.
Also, I wouldn't swear by the exact numbers here. I'm making a lot of simplifying assumptions based on the available data in the thread, since I do not have spreadsheets of my own. To do this correctly, you'd really want to look at the entire distribution, and not just break it down into overperform or underperform.
I'm not particularly interested in this argument one way or another, but it sure was sweet watching the Yanks just kick the crap out of Johan Santana like they did in that game.
Especially considering it was the free agent they pursued vs. the free agent they passed on, the one that the kibbitzers were saying they should have given up Hughes and Chamberlain to get. Hell, it may have been even sweeter than that Friday night gift game, which I still have a hard time believing.
Ooooh, yeah. That was a great game. Thanks for reminding me!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main