Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

High odds against Dodgers, Indians streaks | MLB.com

Jim Furtado Posted: September 12, 2017 at 06:17 AM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, indians

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. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: September 12, 2017 at 06:49 AM (#5530021)
Hey now, the Dodgers went a full 36 hours without losing and didn't even need an off day to accomplish it.
   2. TomH Posted: September 12, 2017 at 07:46 AM (#5530024)
The author actually had some reasonable ways to explain why it depends on your assumptions. Maybe even better would be to mention how with 30 MLB teams and a 162-game season, there are a *lot* of opportunities for unlikely streaks, which in the end makes them not quite as improbable as it first seems.

But yeah, the Dodgers' recent play is Very improbable.
   3. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 12, 2017 at 08:03 AM (#5530028)
The 11-game losing streak is the longest ever since moving to El Lay.

Longest since Hitler.
   4. Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine Posted: September 12, 2017 at 09:08 AM (#5530045)
I'd be more interested to know how good/bad a team would have to be to create a scenario where these types of streaks would be expected or at least not crazy. What would a "true talent" level need to be for a team to have say a 10% chance at a 19 game winning streak or an 11 game losing streak.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5530101)
I'd be more interested to know how good/bad a team would have to be to create a scenario where these types of streaks would be expected or at least not crazy. What would a "true talent" level need to be for a team to have say a 10% chance at a 19 game winning streak or an 11 game losing streak.

It's really impossible to say. All the standard probability math is assuming indpendent events drawn from a fixed probability distribution.

These kind of streaks are almost certainly the result of changes to the probability distribution (injuries, performance streaks and slumps, etc.) or correlation ("choking", strength of opponents, etc.).

We're not seeing a true talent .600 (or whatever they end up at) Indians team win on 19 independent events. The true talent has likely shifted, and there is likely correlationa cross events.
   6. TomH Posted: September 12, 2017 at 01:15 PM (#5530193)
There are enough data in 100+ years of MLB records that we could test snapper's hypothesis; which sounds true on the surface, that these are not independent games; see if the distribution of 10, 13, 16, whatever win/loss streaks is statistically different than that of the team's Wpct for the year, modified each game by opponent and home advantage.
   7. Sunday silence Posted: September 12, 2017 at 04:07 PM (#5530317)
I started to do some back of envelope calculations on this issue and Im not sure i got the math right so I wont attempt any conclusions. It seems to me more likely that we are seeing the results of many teams that are "true talent" .600 teams eventually having a long streak, rather than true talent .700 teams since there dont seem to be as many of them and you'd still need quite a few of them to have say 3 or 4 20 game win streaks.

Then there's the real world problem of both talent inequality and injuries or taking it easy. (Snapper mentioned this above) I cant imagine a 26 win streak in this day/age so am likely to think the Jints streak is part result of inequal talent levels or west coast teams tanking it or whatever.

BIll James seemed to run into the same problem when discussing DiMaggios hitting streak. After doing the math he concluded it was really far beyond what stats would say is likely. Although James mentioned the scoring dispute with respect to the disputed no calls on likely errors, he didnt seem to grasp the signnificance. To me, it shows that the subjective determination of what is a hit or error is still based on human subjectivity, and its very likely that the two hits DiMag got credited are simply humans intervening and putting their thumb on the scales and throwing off the odds, otherwise the only conclusion is that DiMaggio was really on an unbelieveable level.

NOTE I thought James mentioned that the favorable calls were on Ken Keltner but this site seems to say it was on Appling.


http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway91.html
   8. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 12, 2017 at 04:31 PM (#5530344)
Then there's the real world problem of both talent inequality and injuries or taking it easy. (Snapper mentioned this above) I cant imagine a 26 win streak in this day/age so am likely to think the Jints streak is part result of inequal talent levels or west coast teams tanking it or whatever.

Probably so, but when an exceptional team with motivation for postseason positioning runs into a September schedule mostly consisting of weak division opponents with nothing but pride to play for, you can wind up with a perfect storm. That may be what we're now seeing with the Indians, but in fact the spread between the top and bottom AL teams this year isn't much different than it was in the 1916 NL, when the 4th place Giants ran off that 26-game streak.
   9. No longer interested in this website Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:20 AM (#5530627)
Did you know that C-3PO had a silver leg?
   10. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: September 13, 2017 at 02:05 AM (#5530637)
Dodgers snap the slide, Indians rumble on. Indians could top the Moneyball A's streak tomorrow.
   11. flournoy Posted: September 13, 2017 at 02:41 AM (#5530640)
The Braves lost 15 consecutive games that I attended from 2002-2005. (They were a .600 winning percentage team over this period, and of course were in the playoffs ever year.)

As it happens, the streak was broken by Jeff Francoeur's big league debut, thanks in part to his three run homer.

So there's that, not that anyone cares.
   12. Lest we forget Posted: September 13, 2017 at 06:36 AM (#5530643)
The thing about that 26 game winning streak, is that it was a 27 game unbeaten streak. They won 12, tied a game called on account of darkness, then won 14 more.

It takes a wee bit of finagling to call it a 26 game win streak, eh Elias?

So the Indians are going for a tie for the longest consecutive game win streak at 21. Ever. That's a wrap :-)
   13. PreservedFish Posted: September 13, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5530669)
The Braves lost 15 consecutive games that I attended from 2002-2005. (They were a .600 winning percentage team over this period, and of course were in the playoffs ever year.)


That's extraordinary.
   14. Gaelan Posted: September 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5530751)
The Braves lost 15 consecutive games that I attended from 2002-2005. (They were a .600 winning percentage team over this period, and of course were in the playoffs ever year.)

As it happens, the streak was broken by Jeff Francoeur's big league debut, thanks in part to his three run homer.

So there's that, not that anyone cares.


I care. That is one of the most incredible things I have ever heard.
   15. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 13, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5530779)
The Braves lost 15 consecutive games that I attended from 2002-2005. (They were a .600 winning percentage team over this period, and of course were in the playoffs ever year.)

I can't claim anything like that, but in the 20-25 games I attended in Memorial Stadium in 1979, I saw more Orioles losses than wins, and that was the year they went 102-57 overall and 55-24 at home. And of course I also went to all 4 World Series games in Baltimore and watched them lose the last 3. It was only fitting that those last 3 games were all played in a cold and steady drizzle.
   16. TomH Posted: September 13, 2017 at 12:36 PM (#5530842)
#13; more extraordinary if flournoy was attending all HOME games.
   17. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5530865)
Okay, the Indians are now poised to tie the 1935 Cubs, but they're also set to match another 21-game winning streak, the one the Patriots ran off (counting the postseason) in 2003-2004.

So after that, then what?

The 1916 Giants had a 27 game unbeaten streak. The Indians could tie and then break that next Wednesday and Thursday in Anaheim.

The 1971-72 Lakers won 33 straight. The Indians could tie and break that on the following Wednesday and Thursday, at home against the Twins.

And why stop there? If they ran the table on the rest of the schedule, they'd finish 106-56, and if they then swept through the postseason, they'll wrap everything up with a mere 48 game winning streak.

And why not? After all, they won their last World Series in-----1948.
   18. Mefisto Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5530877)
The thing about that 26 game winning streak, is that it was a 27 game unbeaten streak. They won 12, tied a game called on account of darkness, then won 14 more.

It takes a wee bit of finagling to call it a 26 game win streak, eh Elias?


They replayed the tie game the next day as part of a double-header, and of course the Giants won it as part of the 26 straight. Seems legit to me.
   19. cmd600 Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5530887)
They replayed the tie game the next day as part of a double-header, and of course the Giants won it as part of the 26 straight. Seems legit to me.


That wasn't a replay. Those Giants went 86-66 over a 154 game schedule. They had another tie as well, both were counted as final results. The idea that it counts as 26 straight seems to come from them just dropping ties from the final standings, as if those games were never played.
   20. Greg Pope Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5530889)
They replayed the tie game the next day as part of a double-header

I know they just changed the rule on tie games a few years ago, but what was the original rationale for entirely replaying games that were tied and called due to darkness? It seems that the logical choice would be to do what they do now and just finish the game the next day.
   21. flournoy Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5530896)
#16, these games were all at Turner Field, if that's what you mean. A couple of them were playoff games.

I was in college at the time, and it got to the point where my friends wouldn't go to games with me anymore. "Hey, you want to go to the Braves' playoff game this weekend?" "Hell no, not with you. Stay at home."
   22. Mefisto Posted: September 13, 2017 at 02:25 PM (#5530925)
That wasn't a replay. Those Giants went 86-66 over a 154 game schedule. They had another tie as well, both were counted as final results. The idea that it counts as 26 straight seems to come from them just dropping ties from the final standings, as if those games were never played.


BREF shows them playing 155 games that year. The Giants had 3 ties, two against Pit and one against Bsn. They should have played each team 22 times, but there are 24 games listed v. Pit. They replayed both ties against Pit, but the Bsn game never got replayed -- they only played Bsn 21 times -- hence the 155 games.
   23. cmd600 Posted: September 13, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5531037)
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: September 13, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5531038)
I'm good with it being a 26-game winning streak if the game they tied in the middle was made up later - but not if it never got made up.
   25. Lest we forget Posted: September 13, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5531048)
It wasn't made up
   26. TomH Posted: September 13, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5531070)
If you wish to demote a streak based on a tie when a game was called because of darkness/whatever, what about checking for games that were rained out with the team trailing before 5 innings? Or even rained out when the first pitch was being thrown? 26 in a row, just like the Braves won xx division titles in a row. Ad if the Jays had won the 1995 Series, they would have "three-peated", because 1994 was not available for them to win.
   27. Mefisto Posted: September 13, 2017 at 04:26 PM (#5531084)
The Giants played 24 games v. Pit in 1916. They should have played only 22. There's no way to explain that unless they replayed the 2 tie games.
   28. Howie Menckel Posted: September 13, 2017 at 07:56 PM (#5531211)
the 1916 Giants had:

future HOF/HOMers
SP Christy Mathewson (66 IP)
OF Edd Roush (69 AB)

future HOFer
1B High Pockets Kelly (76 AB)

geesh, that's it?

2B Larry Doyle has gotten thousands of HOM vote pts, backup 3B Heinie Zimmerman once won a Triple Crown once, 1B Fred Merkle once made a boner, and they had one of the good OF George Burns-es.
   29. Howie Menckel Posted: September 13, 2017 at 09:14 PM (#5531234)
to add to the weirdness of the 1916 Giants:

Mathewson had been acquired by the Giants in 1900 as a prospect for an out-of-gas, overworked fellow HOFer Amos Rusie who never won another game.

in mid-1916, Mathewson's final season, he limped back to the Reds in a deal that also included future HOFer Roush and future HOFer Bill McKechnie - a so-so player but a great manager for many years.

this has to be the only MLB deal with 3 HOFers leaving in the same side of the deal.

wait, it gets weirder. these Giants started out 2-13, won 17 in a row, won 6 in a row in late July to get back over .500, and were 59-62 when the streak began.
   30. An Athletic in Powderhorn™ Posted: September 13, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5531246)
The Giants played 24 games v. Pit in 1916. They should have played only 22. There's no way to explain that unless they replayed the 2 tie games.
IIRC, the rule was that while tie games weren't counted in the standings, stats accumulated in them were. Looking at those Giants I see that Benny Kauff played 155 games and George Burns* 154. The team page lists 155 games played. Their results list 3 ties: 2 with Pittsburgh and 1 with Boston. The Pittsburgh games must have been made up (they had 22 decisions against them), but the one with Boston and another against Cincy weren't.

*No, the other one.
   31. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 13, 2017 at 11:14 PM (#5531284)
One lovely feature of that 1916 Giants streak: Other than one game that took 2:25 and another that took 2:18, all of the other 25 games (including the tie) were completed in between 1:22 and 1:55, with only 5 of the 27 games in all taking more than 1:50.

When was the last time any Major League game was finished in 1;50 or less?
   32. Lest we forget Posted: September 14, 2017 at 07:14 AM (#5531329)
True or False: The Giants won 26 out of 27 games

When is a 26 game win streak not a 26 game win streak? When it takes 27 games of record to do it.

What the Giants accomplished without question was a 27 game unbeaten streak.



So the Indians are first chasing the All Time consecutive games win streak record, which they are currently tied for.

If they continue, they will be chasing the All Time consecutive games unbeaten streak record, which is 27.

These are good days in Cleveland!

   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 14, 2017 at 07:24 AM (#5531331)
When is a 26 game win streak not a 26 game win streak? When it takes 27 games of record to do it.

What the Giants accomplished without question was a 27 game unbeaten streak.


This is so obvious it should barely need mentioning, but 101 years of repetition of "the Giants' 26 game winning streak" seem to make it necessary.

In fact, the 1916 Giants had three distinct winning streaks: 17 games between May 9th and May 31st; 12 games between September 7th and the 1st game of a September 18th doubleheader; and 14 games between September 19th and September 30th. They never won 26 in a row.
   34. Mefisto Posted: September 14, 2017 at 09:15 AM (#5531380)
The Giants absolutely did win 26 in a row. BBRef shows the streak as well as other sources. And the reason is that the tie game (called for darkness) did not count in the standings, just as a rainout wouldn't count. The tie game was replayed in its entirety and the Giants won that replay as part of their streak.
   35. Lest we forget Posted: September 14, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5531388)
" Ad if the Jays had won the 1995 Series, they would have "three-peated", because 1994 was not available for them to win." Yes; they would have won three consecutive championships.
   36. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 14, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5531402)
When was the last time any Major League game was finished in 1;50 or less?

Before teevee.
   37. TomH Posted: September 14, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5531415)
agree with #34. NFL and NHL count ties as tied games. They exist in the record boks. Baseball games ending with identical scores are not listed in the records. Unless someone can show me a newspaper or guide book or something from 1916 that says the Giants record included a tie and adjusted the Giants winning pct accordingly.
   38. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 14, 2017 at 10:59 AM (#5531466)
The Giants absolutely did win 26 in a row. BBRef shows the streak as well as other sources. And the reason is that the tie game (called for darkness) did not count in the standings, just as a rainout wouldn't count. The tie game was replayed in its entirety and the Giants won that replay as part of their streak.

Minor point: According to the game story in the Times, that tie game was called by a "bucketful" of rain, not by darkness.

But on the substance, while it depends on how you want to look at it, i.e. whether a rain-halted regulation game that ended in a tie and was played over in its entirety should count as a streak breaker, upon further consideration I think you're probably right and I was wrong.

Here are the basics: The Giants played the Pirates 24 games that year, 13 1n New York and 11 in Pittsburgh. After that tie game on the 18th, they'd played 22 games, with two ties among them.

The two teams then wrapped up their season series on the 19th with another doubleheader, the first game being a makeup of their final game in Pittsburgh (also a tie) on August 26th, and the second game being a makeup of the tie on the 18th. That tie game in Pittsburgh was rescheduled for New York because of travel considerations and a September schedule that was already crammed with makeup games. This was expressly stated in the aftermath of the August tie. So that second game of the final doubleheader on the 19th should really just be considered an extension of the tie game from the 18th, which means that the Giants' winning streak should be considered to have been kept intact. FWIW this was how the newspapers viewed it at the time.

So what the Indians now need to do to please everyone is to sweep the 4 games with the Royals, take the first 2 games in Anaheim to make it 27 in a row, and then win the finale in Anaheim to break the Giants' unbeaten streak. Shouldn't be any problem.

EDIT: The point about how ties in baseball aren't counted in the standings is also a good one.

   39. Mefisto Posted: September 14, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5531490)
That's a good summary Andy. And thanks for catching the rainout -- I just assumed the game was called because of darkness because of the circumstances (second game of DH, 8 innings played).
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 14, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5531534)
(second game of DH, 8 innings played).

According to the Times account, the game was called "when the rain came down in bucketsful in the ninth". The BB-Ref. box score shows a "0" for the Pirates in the 9th and an "x" for the Giants, while the box score in the Times only shows 8 innings, but that just might mean that the top of the 9th wasn't completed. Of course if the Pirates had scored in the top of the 9th, the game would've reverted to 8 innings. Since there's no play-by-play in either venue, it's impossible to tell exactly when the game was halted.
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: September 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5531543)
20. Greg Pope Posted: September 13, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5530889)
I know they just changed the rule on tie games a few years ago, but what was the original rationale for entirely replaying games that were tied and called due to darkness? It seems that the logical choice would be to do what they do now and just finish the game the next day.
Maybe it was a purity thing? I.E. maybe there was an idea that a baseball game must be started and finished on the same day.
   42. Lest we forget Posted: September 14, 2017 at 03:33 PM (#5531778)
I didn't know the game was made up the next day. I also went looking for the tie in a standings listing, no avail.

I submit to greater knowledge :-)
   43. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 14, 2017 at 04:54 PM (#5531894)
The Giants absolutely did win 26 in a row. BBRef shows the streak as well as other sources. And the reason is that the tie game (called for darkness) did not count in the standings, just as a rainout wouldn't count. The tie game was replayed in its entirety and the Giants won that replay as part of their streak.


But the stats in a rainout are wiped out. In a tie, they're not. A game that ends in a tie in BBREf is listed on the schedule as a tie. It's game 136 in the Giants 1916 schedule, surrounded by wins in Games 135 and 137. A game that got called after 2 innings wouldn't be listed.

I always assumed ties weren't counted in the standings because baseball standings aren't determined by WP, but by GB. Why they chose to replay tied games has always been unclear.

Obviously, most accounts have always said the Giants won 26 straight games. That was the record I knew. But the game was played. The stats from it counted. And it ended in a tie. To me, that means they didn't win 26 straight, but did have a nifty 26-game unbeaten streak.
   44. Mefisto Posted: September 14, 2017 at 05:22 PM (#5531919)
The game was rained out with the score tied. MLB does not count ties, and didn't in this case as you can see from the Giants W-L record (86-66). It was replayed in its entirety the next day.
   45. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 14, 2017 at 05:34 PM (#5531936)
MLB does not count ties, and didn't in this case as you can see from the Giants W-L record (86-66).


I can also see from the Giants stats page that they played 155 games, not 152. MLB doesn't list ties in the standings, perhaps becuase they have to be replayed, or maybe because they didn't feel the need to add the third column. But those were games played to conclusions.

They played a game that day. The stats in it were official. George Burns was credited with playing 155 games that year, not 152. Even in the days of ties, MLB had the option of suspending a game and picking it up from that point at a later date (though for the life of me I could never figure out what distinguished the suspended game from the tied one), but that option wasn't employed.
   46. Mefisto Posted: September 14, 2017 at 05:42 PM (#5531941)
All of what you say was discussed above. The bottom line is (a) MLB recognizes the streak; (b) so do Elias and BBRef; (c) MLB does not recognize tie games for teams, though individual stats might count; (d) this particular game was rained out and replayed in its entirety the next day.
   47. Bote Man Posted: September 14, 2017 at 05:50 PM (#5531945)
George Burns was credited with playing 155 games that year, not 152.

Would've been a good time to say goodnight, Gracie.
   48. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 14, 2017 at 05:59 PM (#5531947)
All of what you say was discussed above. The bottom line is (a) MLB recognizes the streak; (b) so do Elias and BBRef; (c) MLB does not recognize tie games for teams, though individual stats might count;


It recognizes the game was played. But for most of baseball history, it decided to play another game to make up for this completed tied game. It could have treated this game like an actual rain out, and struck it from the record book. It could have frozen the game in place and picked it up at the same place at a later date, like a suspended game. It chose, instead, to end the game with the score tied, then start an entirely new game tomorrow. That's a tie.

As for what they do, MLB also doesn't include ROE in OBP, while it excludes sac bunts from BA but not OBP. This is just another example of bad judgment.

   49. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: September 14, 2017 at 06:02 PM (#5531950)
I always assumed ties weren't counted in the standings because baseball standings aren't determined by WP, but by GB.


This assumption is false. Standings are determined by winning percentage. Although the only time this actually mattered was the 1915 Chicago Whales winning the Federal League pennant. There have been rules since requiring that games be made up if they could matter (exception being in 1981 where some teams won half season division titles by half a game, but 1981 was a farce).
   50. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 14, 2017 at 06:16 PM (#5531964)
exception being in 1981 where some teams won half season division titles by half a game, but 1981 was a farce).


That's not the only exception. The Red Sox lost the 1972 AL East title by a half-game.
   51. Mefisto Posted: September 14, 2017 at 06:32 PM (#5531970)
I fail to see the difference between what MLB did in 1916 and treating the game as suspended. If it had been suspended, nobody would doubt that the Giants won it. Treating the game as rained out -- and thus not counting in the standings -- achieves the same result. Instead of replaying the game in part, they replayed it entirely. The Giants won.

In any case, it's recognized as a record and has been as long as I can recall. You can take it up with MLB.
   52. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 14, 2017 at 06:37 PM (#5531975)
This is just another example of bad judgment.

Hire this man!
   53. Booey Posted: September 14, 2017 at 06:52 PM (#5531985)
I just hope the Indians win 27+ and make this conversation moot. I like my records to be indisputable!
   54. Heart of Matt Harvey Posted: September 14, 2017 at 07:02 PM (#5531990)
The Indians were postponed during this streak, so there will always be an asterisk in my mind.
   55. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 14, 2017 at 07:36 PM (#5532008)
That's not the only exception. The Red Sox lost the 1972 AL East title by a half-game.

And in 1908 the Tigers finished a half game ahead of the Indians, with the White Sox a full game behind. If the White Sox had beaten the Tigers on the last day of the season, the first and third places would've been reversed, but the Indians still would've finished half a game behind.
   56. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: September 14, 2017 at 11:13 PM (#5532179)
1908 was before they made the rule that every team has to complete their schedule if it could affect who won the pennant. You're right about 1972, though. I think that was similar to 1981 in that a strike caused the number of games played to be different.

Let's look at a hypothetical 1981, though. In the first half, the Phillies played 5 more games than the Cardinals, 4 wins and 1 loss. Had it been 3 wins and 2 losses instead, they actually would have been considered tied, both .600 records. But say instead the Cardinals had won 1 more game and the Phillies had the same record. It would have been 34-21 vs. 31-19, putting the Phillies a half game up, but the Cardinals would have won the division .620 to .618 because the standing are based on W%, not games back.
   57. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 15, 2017 at 12:32 AM (#5532219)
because the standing are based on W%, not games back.


Just curious Gags - where is that written?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in
(284 - 2:21pm, Nov 21)
Last: . . . . . . . . . .

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(120 - 2:19pm, Nov 21)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogJoe Morgan Wants To Keep Steroid Cheats Out Of Baseball Hall Of Fame | MLB | NESN.com
(24 - 2:17pm, Nov 21)
Last: cmd600

NewsblogMore on WAR – Joe Blogs – Medium
(199 - 2:13pm, Nov 21)
Last: Blanks for Nothing, Larvell

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(206 - 2:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: PepTech

NewsblogGabe Kapler's only season as a manager gave hints for how he will lead Phillies
(32 - 2:11pm, Nov 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1477 - 2:01pm, Nov 21)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogThird time through the order isn’t a charm, and Mets are ready to deal with it | Newsday
(2 - 1:57pm, Nov 21)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Phillies Voting Thread
(6 - 1:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogProspectus Feature: Bill James vs. The Noise - Baseball Prospectus
(7 - 1:11pm, Nov 21)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

Sox TherapyEnd of an Era
(6 - 11:51am, Nov 21)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(202 - 11:40am, Nov 21)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogTeams set 40-man rosters ahead of Rule 5 Draft
(7 - 11:38am, Nov 21)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogJudge and Altuve | Articles | Bill James Online
(61 - 11:10am, Nov 21)
Last: Rally

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(245 - 10:51am, Nov 21)
Last: JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head

Page rendered in 0.4440 seconds
47 querie(s) executed