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

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Jim Caple: The Hall’s real numbers problem

Caple wishes he could vote for sixteen players:

So that’s why I intend to vote for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Mike Piazza, Edgar Martinez, Curt Schilling and, yes, Jack Morris. My mind isn’t completely made up yet, though, because I’d also vote for Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and possibly Bernie Williams if not for the 10-player limit.

 

Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM | 39 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4332464)
Again, you can say my standards are too low. Perhaps they are. I readily acknowledge some of those players might be borderline. Which is why players must receive votes from at least 75 percent of the writers. The only way any of the above players get in is if three-quarters of the voters agree with me.

So what's the harm in allowing us to vote the way we want?

There isn't any. But there is harm done when deserving candidates get dropped from the ballot simply because of an outdated, arbitrary rule that makes no sense. Even if you don't want PED suspects in the Hall of Fame, bear in mind that the 10-man limit is going to hurt the other players as well -- and probably more so.


Well, I'm glad somebody is speaking out about the 10 player limit.
   2. djordan Posted: December 26, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4332468)
Caple makes a solid point here. Never considered the fact that the 10-player limit was been in effect since there were only 16 teams. They could at least move that number up to include a few more.
   3. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 26, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4332469)
Sixteen players and no Kenny Lofton? Bernie Williams over Kenny Lofton? Interesting.
   4. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 26, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4332477)
This point of view. I like it.
   5. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 26, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4332478)
Of course, the 10 player limit wouldn't be such a big deal if the voters would stop ignoring worthy candidates like Raines and Trammell.
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: December 26, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4332492)
Sixteen players and no Kenny Lofton? Bernie Williams over Kenny Lofton? Interesting.


Lofton's candidacy is based to much on numbers that isn't properly measured right now. Bernie is a guy with a 125 career ops+ vs Lofton 107 ops+ both played centerfield, similar career length etc... I don't have a problem with picking Bernie over Lofton. I am pretty sure Bernie is not deserving and that Lofton needs more study before we can say he is deserving, but right now, I can understand taking Bernie over Lofton by some people (especially a person who is voting for Morris, because of contemporary perceptions)
   7. AROM Posted: December 26, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4332499)
Fair enough on Lofton vs Bernie.

Bernie is 15 wins ahead as a hitter. Easy enough to measure.

Lofton makes up 10 wins on baserunning (+ avoiding DP). Bernie being about average, while he was fast in his youth he was never particularly good at stealing bases, while Lofton was a high volume, high success rate base stealer. This is easy to measure, and would be hard to dispute.

Lofton makes up (and then some) for Bernie's 5 win advantage by being 25 wins better in the field (+14 vs -11). Now this is the tough part. The numbers might be right, but there's a lot of uncertainty there. Adding some personal observation to the mix:

Bernie seemed like a good outfielder in the 90's. He won 4 gold gloves, his team won 4 WS. Total Zone rates him as terrible during that time, except for 1995, and then worse in the 2000's. Bernie was an observably bad outfielder from at least 2002 on. Especially for his lack of throwing, which can be summed up by watching 2002 ALDS game 4, and seeing the "You've got to be kidding me" look on his face as he allows Shawn Wooten to go first to third.

For his career his RF9 was 2.59 in center, vs 2.73 league average.

Lofton was great due to his speed in the 90's. He's rated as such. He didn't seem that great later on, as his still good speed was combined with poor routes and jumps. For his career, he made 2.63 plays, vs. a 2.68 average.

I could see Lofton's real defensive advantage being closer to 5 wins over Williams, that would put them about even overall. Maybe, that would be the best case scenario for Bernie. The one year they shared an OF position, Lofton was 37, 2 years older. He made 2.75 plays per 9 in center, Bernie only 2.34.
   8. Howie Menckel Posted: December 26, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4332521)

The "must get 5 pct in first year" is even dumber than the 10-man ballot, given the unofficial "only gets a vote if he's a true 'first ballot' guy" tradition among many voters.

There are many ways to fix that one, the most obvious being, um, you need to reach 5 pct after TWO ballots. That way the ignored guys in Year one in effect would get a "15th year on ballot" type of look-see, and voters could choose them in Year 2 without running afoul of the "first ballot Hall of Famer" issue.

   9. Squash Posted: December 26, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4332538)
Of course, the 10 player limit wouldn't be such a big deal if the voters would stop ignoring worthy candidates like Raines and Trammell.

I think you're right, the real problem isn't the 10 player limit, it's that players linger for years and years on the ballot. If the Hall/writers want to hold onto the 10 player limit, they should probably do away with the 15-year limit, though that seems to me to create an even bigger problem as the writers would stretch out candidates into eternity - there's no way Blyleven a few years ago or Morris now get anywhere near the votes they're getting/got if there's no hard deadline for them to be either in or out. In the end they should just probably do away with the 10 person limit. Or learn how to properly evaluate candidates, but they're not going to do that.
   10. cmd600 Posted: December 26, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4332546)
So what's the harm in allowing us to vote the way we want?


I pretty much agree with him, but I really hate this line. So many writers use something like this now to say Hall of Fame (and MVP/Cy Young too) voting is just some subjective opinion so no one can be smart or dumb, right or wrong, etc, so my subjective opinion works regardless of what the facts say.
   11. JRVJ Posted: December 26, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4332553)
This article is fine, but I get the impression that it will be superseded by events VERY QUICKLY, after the upcoming Ballot-Geddon (which will inevitably have its consequences).
   12. Rennie's Tenet Posted: December 26, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4332578)
I think you're right, the real problem isn't the 10 player limit, it's that players linger for years and years on the ballot. If the Hall/writers want to hold onto the 10 player limit, they should probably do away with the 15-year limit,


If the problem is that players linger for years and years, shouldn't the writers vote be limited to 5 to 10 years, instead of 15? With a seven-year ballot, McGwire leaves after this year, induction or not.
   13. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 26, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4332580)
There are many ways to fix that one, the most obvious being, um, you need to reach 5 pct after TWO ballots. That way the ignored guys in Year one in effect would get a "15th year on ballot" type of look-see, and voters could choose them in Year 2 without running afoul of the "first ballot Hall of Famer" issue.


I'd actually address the problem by taking it in the opposite direction - you have to get 5% to stay on the ballot, and after X number of years on the ballot, you have to get to an even higher number to stay on the ballot. I don't know what the number should be, off the top of my head, because I'd like to see the numbers on such things as the lowest percentage a player had after five years on the ballot who eventually got voted in by the writers. I'll bet it's around 20%, but I could be wrong.

Take Dale Murphy. Here are his percentages (rounded) going from 2012 backwards: 15, 13, 12, 12 14, 9, 11, 11, 9, 12, 15, 18, 23, 19. He is obviously not making the HOF via the BBWAA, and this has been obviously true since about year four (maybe earlier). If people are voting for 10 people, and he is one of them, then he clogging the ballot. Of course, how many people in the last 14 years have voted for Murphy as one of their ten candidates? If you voted for fewer than ten, then Murphy was't clogging anybody's ballot, was he?

Mattingly has three more votes. He is obviously not going. Dave Parker was obviously not going, as he had remarkably consistent percentages over most of his 15 years. Jim Kaat. Dave Concepcion.

NOTE: I took a quick look at some other players, and it's actually pretty hard to say - take a guy like Steve Garvey. He started at a very high percentage early on, getting over 40% three of his first six years. Then he dropped, and pretty much spent his last eight years on the ballot stuck in the 20%-28% range. I'm coming around that the actual problem is not the lack of ballot spots for quality candidates - it's the lack of quality voters. With the 75% threshold, it takes relatively few BBWAA schmucks to blow it for virtually all the players.
   14. SoSH U at work Posted: December 26, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4332597)
Keep the 15-year limit, but a candidate must be making progress to stay on the ballot. Even though I think the number of "not on the first-ballot" voters is neglibile, I'm OK with going to two years before the heave ho. Therefore, 5 percent after two elections (or after one year, but with a maybe option for first-year candidates), 10 percent after 4/5, 15 after 8, 20 after 10, 25 after 12. No limit on the number of players a voter can select. And work with the BBWAA to phase out voting privileges of any members who haven't covered the sport, in some fashion, in X number of years.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 26, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4332609)
Isn't part of the issue that there are simply more (and more good) candidates due to expansion? The 30-team league guys are just now graduating, which means we should continue to (generally) be seeing more robust sets of newbies. Which we are the next few years.
   16. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 26, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4332623)
Isn't part of the issue that there are simply more (and more good) candidates due to expansion?


Well, and steroids. McGwire should have sailed in by now, and Palmeiro was always going to be underappreciated, but would likely have been in now also, since other than Pete Rose which is a separate issue there is no precedent for keeping anyone with 3,000 hits out of the Hall, let alone with 500 home runs as well.
   17. Walt Davis Posted: December 26, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4332637)
Nothing new here -- the primary problem with any voting process is idiots not voting the way I want them to. :-)

The voters might be the source of the problem but there's no way to fix that problem. You could take the vote away from the BBWAA but any other group of voters will display similarly illogical behavior -- simply the nature of the beast for any multi-rater problem.

So, if the process needs to be improved, you do that by changing the process. The "5% problem" is not one I consider a problem but it's solved anyway by expanding the ballot to 15 or 20 or infinity. But, sure, there's no major problem introduced by keeping more guys eligible for longer so tweak the 5% rule if you want. But I don't see how these will have a major impact on the crowded ballot -- the result of both rules are to help keep Larry Walker alive and Tim Raines from falling back. I support those goals but they don't help push people through.

There's also a problem that I don't think we have any idea how many 10-man ballots are currently submitted. It can't have been a very high number prior to this year. Anyway, I can easily see that change occurring -- the ones who want it will raise the issue and there's no particularly strong reason for anybody to object.

Still there's really only a "big" problem if nobody gets elected over several years. That's not going to happen though. But if it did, then something "radical" would have to happen -- electing the top 1-2 vote getters at a minimum or a special committee to sort out the roids players.

The special committee approach was used once before to restore some sub-5%ers (e.g. Santo) to the ballot so that's another potential solution for Walker.
   18. DL from MN Posted: December 26, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4332674)
5% after 2 years but 1% after a year. If a guy can't pull 5 votes his first try he's not ever going to make it.
   19. LargeBill Posted: December 26, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4332688)
18. DL from MN Posted: December 26, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4332674)
5% after 2 years but 1% after a year. If a guy can't pull 5 votes his first try he's not ever going to make it.


In a normal situation that would be correct. However, when there are well over 15 players that deserve serious consideration it is very easy to not get even one percent. Lofton is a very good example. I won't argue he is an inner circle slam dunk kind of guy, but his type career numbers would normally get multiple years on the ballot. I've seen him on just one ballot and doubt he'll get many more.
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: December 26, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4332697)
In a normal situation that would be correct. However, when there are well over 15 players that deserve serious consideration it is very easy to not get even one percent. Lofton is a very good example. I won't argue he is an inner circle slam dunk kind of guy, but his type career numbers would normally get multiple years on the ballot. I've seen him on just one ballot and doubt he'll get many more.


Exactly. If I was a voter, I wouldn't vote for Lofton, but he should be on the ballot 5-10 years from now so that I could continue to reevaluate his candidacy. Same thing with Kevin Brown who was a one and done. There are just too many guys who don't get the required 5% who's case could be shaped by distancing the voter from their playing days.
   21. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 26, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4332699)
I'm not sure that follows. Lou Whitaker wasn't one and done because of a ballot squeeze. He was one and done because very few of the actual electorate appreciated how good he was. Lofton feels to me like exactly the kind of guy who could get Whitakered even in a thin year.

EDIT: this is re 19, in case it isn't clear.
   22. Squash Posted: December 26, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4332712)
If the problem is that players linger for years and years, shouldn't the writers vote be limited to 5 to 10 years, instead of 15? With a seven-year ballot, McGwire leaves after this year, induction or not.

I thought about that too - the fear is that candidates for whose validity takes time to emerge (Blyleven, for example, wouldn't have been elected after seven years, but was after 14 years when the statistical processes that showed he was of HOF level were more widely accepted) get screwed b/c they drop off the ballot early. The flipside is that there are relatively few of these candidates, and many of those who do get in at the very end (Rice, possibly Morris) aren't actually of HOF caliber anyway. 15 years is an awfully long time though - other than Blyleven, whose case seems almost custom designed to tweak the system and the Moneyball-related changes that were going on at the time, what other guys were elected in their 13th or 14th or 15th year who were actually "valid" HOFers? We do have to wonder whether though changing the number of years does anything other than move up the timeline - if everyone went off after year seven we might get the same "hurry up and vote" effect then rather than in year 15 anyway. People often end up doing things at the last minute, regardless of when that last minute is.

Keep the 15-year limit, but a candidate must be making progress to stay on the ballot. Even though I think the number of "not on the first-ballot" voters is neglibile, I'm OK with going to two years before the heave ho. Therefore, 5 percent after two elections (or after one year, but with a maybe option for first-year candidates), 10 percent after 4/5, 15 after 8, 20 after 10, 25 after 12. No limit on the number of players a voter can select. And work with the BBWAA to phase out voting privileges of any members who haven't covered the sport, in some fashion, in X number of years.

I'm coming around that the actual problem is not the lack of ballot spots for quality candidates - it's the lack of quality voters. With the 75% threshold, it takes relatively few BBWAA schmucks to blow it for virtually all the players.

I like both of these. I like that there are guys like Trammell, etc., who hang on, gathering good vote totals - it makes the vote interesting rather than just the handful of guys at the top (though Trammell of course should be in by now), and keeps those cases alive. But after a certain number of years 10% shouldn't cut it anymore. And they should have some sort of filtration system for voters, as it is a percentage-based system. You have to start retaking your driver's test at some point as well. It's extremely rare to have 10 valid first-year candidates regardless - a lot of these candidates who are hanging around at this point clogging up the bases like Frank Thomas in a Dusty Baker lineup should be in (or out) by now. If they were, 10 spots doesn't matter nearly as much anyway.
   23. Walt Davis Posted: December 26, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4332728)
his type career numbers would normally get multiple years on the ballot.

I'm not seeing it. Lofton doesn't have very many good comps of course. A couple of things to remember -- while WAR loves his defense, he won only 4 GG (not a big number for a CF) and he never led the league in anything but SB. How a guy with a 400 OBP batting leadoff on those Cleveland team never leads the league in RS is a bit of a mystery.

Like I said, not many good comps. The first guy that sprang to mind was Brett Butler who got less than 1%. Devon White got 0, Campy was one and done. Raines is struggling. Brock sailed in but he had 3000 hits and the career and single-season SB records (and lousy defense). Vince Coleman, Willie Wilson, etc. obviously not getting any consideration but I assume even the voters consider Lofton better than those guys. Yes it will be silly when Ichiro sails in with 95% of the vote while Lofton doesn't make 5% but we've been down that road before. What's really gonna piss me off is when Pierre gets more votes.

Good all-around players often struggle -- Whitaker, Evans, Grich, Reggie Smith (one and done) -- and it clearly doesn't help being at a position that has Mays, Mantle, Griffey, etc. WAR is not a good guide as to how voters are going to treat somebody like Lofton. The voters have generally had pretty high standards for CF too.

If Lofton had started at 21 or 22 he might have made it to 3000 hits (both due to those earlier hits and due to getting more PT and maybe one more season at the end as he neared the mileston).
   24. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: December 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4332753)
De-emphasize the writers. They prove every year that they are not capable. It should go like this: every year the writers get one vote on the new class. 75% and you are in, less than that you get dumped into the Veteran's Committee domain. The vet's committee meets every year and must come out with two names (or one, or three, it's debatable). Every year we get an induction ceremony, the writer's either have to #### or get off the pot on these guys. Done.
   25. DanG Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4332778)
Keep the 15-year limit, but a candidate must be making progress to stay on the ballot.
One simple system towards this end, which also serves the aim of "#### or get off the pot on these guys," is requiring players to receive support greater or equal to the sum of their years on the ballot. Maximum years on the ballot would be 12:

Year Pct needed
. . . . 1
. . . . 3
. . . . 6
. . . .10
. . . .15
. . . .21
. . . .28
. . . .36
. . . .45
10. 
. . .55
11. 
. . .66 

   26. Howie Menckel Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4332781)

Honestly, that math is way too complicated for the BBWAA.

   27. Rob_Wood Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:35 AM (#4332786)
Another comp for Lofton is Willie Davis who, alas, fared poorly in HOF voting.
   28. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 27, 2012 at 05:38 AM (#4332811)
So what's the harm in allowing us to vote the way we want?


Because it's entirely possible that 75% of you are going to vote like idiots and elect Jack Morris.

and, yes, Jack Morris...


See?


.
   29. Bhaakon Posted: December 27, 2012 at 08:19 AM (#4332820)
Because it's entirely possible that 75% of you are going to vote like idiots and elect Jack Morris.


If 75% of the fans are idiots as well, then no harm, no foul. Ultimately, the continued success or future failure of the Hall of Fame will not be determined by its popularity as a tourist attraction, not objective measures.
   30. AROM Posted: December 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4332856)
Lofton feels to me like exactly the kind of guy who could get Whitakered even in a thin year.


Agree. I think Davidoff voted for him, but I can't remember seeing his name on any of the other published ballots.
   31. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4332868)
the hall of fame's problem is that you have a bunch of old people making stupid, petty decisions that don't help the baseball brand. electing a bunch of second tier players that don't excite anyone or worse electing nobody is terrible marketing.

controvery sells. if the hall elected barry bonds to the hall of fame there would be oodles of attention for the hall of fame

instead the hall of fame is going to stick fans with having to get excited about players that didn't generate excitement while they were playing much less now.

what a waste
   32. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4332938)
controvery sells. if the hall elected barry bonds to the hall of fame there would be oodles of attention for the hall of fame

Sure, for a few weeks in January and one weekend in August. And then what? Do you really think that once the dust settles, people are going to base their decision to visit the HoF on the basis on whether Barry Bonds is represented by a plaque instead of an asterisk ball?
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4332956)
I don't know... to get to a Yes on Lofton you really need to buy into his defense. Because a .277 EqA isn't _that_ great, even for a CF, and he didn't have a long career, and he wasn't _all_ that durable (although the strike masks some of that, and hurts him). This comment from Baseball Prospectus 2008 is pretty much on point:

A late bloomer, he didn't get a big-league job until he was 25, but as a career .299/.372/.423 hitter with 2,428 hits and 622 stolen bases (15th all-time), he just might have had an outside shot at the Hall of Fame had he gotten going a bit sooner.

   34. DanG Posted: December 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4332986)
Honestly, that math is way too complicated for the BBWAA.
You're probably right. How about: the percentage needed to continue on the ballot is three times your years eligible. So Year 1 = 3%. Year 2 = 6%. And so on.
   35. cmd600 Posted: December 27, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4333054)
33 - That BP quote is frustrating. Lofton wasn't a late bloomer, he was late to start. He recorded just one AB in college because he played basketball instead. I don't like giving demerits to a guy for choosing to play another sport. His late career start wasn't from some lack of inate baseball ability. To the contrary, I'm impressed he was a legit major leaguer that quickly.
   36. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 27, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4333240)
So maybe "late bloomer" is unfair, but they aren't giving him demerits for a late start. It's just that the late start prevented him from accruing more career value and reaching some nice round numbers in a few counting stats.
   37. AROM Posted: December 27, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4333241)
I don't like giving demerits to a guy for choosing to play another sport.


It's not giving him demerits. If you evaluate Lofton on the actual record you're just not making up "what if" seasons that Lofton would have had in a universe where James Naismith never thought about hanging peach baskets in a gym.
   38. SoSH U at work Posted: December 27, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4333245)
I don't like giving demerits to a guy for choosing to play another sport. His late career start wasn't from some lack of inate baseball ability.


That was a choice he made. I obviously support the idea of giving credit to those barred instituationally (Negro Leaguers) and open to considering those barred by circumstances outside their control (team incompetence, for instance, when a qualified ballplayer is kept down on the farm). But whatever limitations Kenny Lofton placed on his career were self-inflicted. I'm sure he never realized that he was harming his Hall of Fame case by playing roundball for so long, but that is the end result.
   39. DL from MN Posted: December 27, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4333309)
There are just too many guys who don't get the required 5%


Yeah but they use a physical ballot and you can't keep Jeff Conine and Rondell White on it forever or it will be 10 pages long.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(1 - 7:07am, Oct 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(369 - 6:49am, Oct 24)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3405 - 6:48am, Oct 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(5 - 5:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(867 - 12:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(13 - 11:36pm, Oct 23)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGold Glove Awards finalists revealed | MLB.com
(53 - 11:07pm, Oct 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

Page rendered in 0.5767 seconds
53 querie(s) executed