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

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Les Winkeler: There’s more to baseball than just numbers

Less Winkeler - More Ted McGineley!

There was a time I loved talking baseball.

It was easy to spend hours discussing the relative merits of Stan Musial, Lou Brock, Bob Gibson, Ted Simmons, George Hendrick, Mark McGwire and Adam Wainwright.

However, thanks to sabermetrics, those days are past. The concept of sabermetrics, a pure mathematical analysis of baseball, first surfaced in the mid-1960s. The science of sabermetrics, and it is a science, tells us that batting average and RBIs don’t reflect the true value of a player.

And, I understand that … to a point. A great hitter in a weak lineup is going to have fewer RBI opportunities than an average hitter surrounded by great players. I get it. On the other hand, don’t try to convince me that someone with 150 RBIs didn’t have a good year.

...I know the importance of tendencies and playing the percentages, but taken to an extreme, a person can get bogged down by analysis.

For instance, if I’m enjoying some exotic dish, don’t give me the recipe. I don’t want to know.

If I’m looking at a beautiful photo of Mount Rainier, don’t spoil the moment with a geology lesson.

The sheer analytical nature of some of these statistics removes any shred of romance from the game. Baseball isn’t played by robots. It’s played by human beings on fields of grass.

Repoz Posted: May 05, 2013 at 08:28 AM | 47 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. Tricky Dick Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4434381)
How many articles like this can be written? So,sabermetrics prevents people from discussing the great players of the past?
   2. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:32 AM (#4434384)
For instance, if I’m enjoying some exotic dish, don’t give me the recipe. I don’t want to know.

Really? I feel like that kind of thing enhances the experience...especially since often it uses ingredients/cooking techniques with which I'm not familiar and I get to ask questions! and stuff.
   3. Chris Fluit Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:35 AM (#4434385)
taken to an extreme, a person can get bogged down by analysis.


True.


There was a time I loved talking baseball.

However, thanks to sabermetrics, those days are past.


Ridiculous. If statistics ruined your love of the game, that's on you, not on sabermetrics.

You may not want to know the recipe to some exotic dish but someone else may want to- and their interest in the recipe should not prevent you in any way from taking pleasure in eating the dish.
   4. Publius Publicola Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:45 AM (#4434389)
If I’m looking at a beautiful photo of Mount Rainier, don’t spoil the moment with a geology lesson.


This is an absurd statement. It's a variation of "Don't confuse me with the facts.".
   5. bobm Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4434390)
The science of sabermetrics, and it is a science, tells us that batting average and RBIs don’t reflect the true value of a player. [...]

Finally, I don’t like the acronyms. Seriously, it’s difficult to say things like BABIP and VORP with a straight face.


How difficult is it to say things like RBI?


   6. The District Attorney Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4434404)
I'd say that Les Winkeler ought to do more thinking and less winkling!
   7. Jack Keefe Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4434407)
Hey Al now they are all up set because some 1 said stop expaining baseball with all your POCOROBAs and MORDORs and I agree Al. If I am looking at a pretty girl I do not want a lesson in Obsenics and Guidocology. If I am taking a good sadistfying Dump I do not want to be reading a Techs Book on Pronktology. If I am Drunk off my Apse I do not want to hear some lecture on how Our Friend the Yeast makes little Alcohol Bubbles. Though may be I do Al what the hell do I care by that Point.
   8. ??'s Biggest Fan! Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4434410)
What? The debate between Cabrera vs Trout for MVP garnered both mainstream and sabermetrics community's attention and analysis. How is that different from the discussions cited in above? This seems more of an indictment of the writer's narrow mindednes than some weird sabermetrics led conspiracy.
   9. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4434412)
And, I understand that … to a point. A great hitter in a weak lineup is going to have fewer RBI opportunities than an average hitter surrounded by great players. I get it. On the other hand, don’t try to convince me that someone with 150 RBIs didn’t have a good year.

According to Bref there are 44 seasons with at least 150 RBI. Of those, the lowest OPS+ is Gallaraga's '96 season at 127. So yeah if you had 150 RBI, you had a good season. The number is asically so high, that you can only reach it if you had a lot of RBI opportunities, and had a good season.

The issue gets a lot murkier, when you drop down into the range where it could be either or, and not both. Would you rather have Bond's '02 season, or Francoeur's '06? They both had 103 RBI after all...
   10. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:32 AM (#4434413)
Hey Al now they are all up set because some 1 said stop expaining baseball with all your POCOROBAs and MORDORs and I agree Al.

MORDORs are clearly not sabermetric... after all, you can't walk into MORDOR.
   11. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4434414)
Sabermetrics isn't just all numbers. It also involves operators and operands.
   12. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 05, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4434418)
For instance, if I’m enjoying some exotic dish, don’t give me the recipe. I don’t want to know.

Really? I feel like that kind of thing enhances the experience...especially since often it uses ingredients/cooking techniques with which I'm not familiar and I get to ask questions! and stuff.


Yes indeed. I will grant that I enjoy movies ...differently, since I began studying film. In, say, an action sequence, I can't help but calling out in my head with each cut, "green screen, stunt man, puppeteer, two shot two shot, insert..."

It takes me out of the story, granted, but for years I had that particular form of getting lost in movies, and now my appreciation is more technical. If I want more wonder I can go for a walk in the woods, where my knowledge of nature is certainly less (though, as you note, I'm fascinated when going for a walk with a friend who can tell me which plants are edible and why, and of whom I can ask questions).
   13. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: May 05, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4434436)
Mordor is a great control pitcher; one does not simply draw a walk against Mordor.
   14. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: May 05, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4434442)
There are things I enjoy like cooking and baseball where more knowledge enhances my enjoyment. There are other things I enjoy where I am content to just enjoy the experience like movies and music where I don't feel interested in the "recipe." I can enjoy both sets of things and have perfectly pleasant if different types of discussions about both.

The difference is that I don't feel compelled to tell people that my less informed opinion is absolutely right on issues. I don't know, nor do I care, what a great technical guitarist sounds like but I know what I enjoy.
   15. bobm Posted: May 05, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4434476)
   16. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 05, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4434478)
Tony Bats!

That was some road to 99 RBIs.

Speaking of post 15, I see Moose Solters started in the minors at age 21, got his shot at 28, and eventually had a season with 134 ribbies. I wonder what the formula would be for listing players kept in the minors most pointlessly?
   17. bobm Posted: May 05, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4434486)
   18. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 05, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4434490)
Thanks, bob. I don't suppose it's possible to sort that list by RBI opportunities?

Wow. Willie at 40 got on base 225 times, threw in 23/3 SB/CS and good power, and still only scored 82 runs.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: May 05, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4434498)
How many articles like this can be written? So,sabermetrics prevents people from discussing the great players of the past?


I don't know, but if more of them are like that it would be fine. This is the type of anti-stat articles that treat the stat concept with respect. It's not the typical fear response of education that you usually see from people bagging on stats.

He isn't saying stats are bad or ruining the game, he's just talking about his view on how stats affect his own personal opinion of watching the game. Sure he's missing the point about how it generates discussion(although the Cabrera v Trout is a horrible example of it, since the stat community basically just said "look at war")

   20. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4434509)
(although the Cabrera v Trout is a horrible example of it, since the stat community basically just said "look at war")

Bull. It was repeatedly pointed out here, that the case for Trout over Cabrera doesn't require any advanced statistics at all.
   21. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4434512)
Finally, I don’t like the acronyms. Seriously, it’s difficult to say things like BABIP and VORP with a straight face.

Dear Mr. President,
There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three.
P.S. I am not a crackpot.
   22. cardsfanboy Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4434515)

Bull. It was repeatedly pointed out here, that the case for Trout over Cabrera doesn't require any advanced statistics at all.


Here, yes. In published articles on it, even those supporting Trout...not so much. They might have broke it down to oWar etc... but for the most part, I don't remember too many articles on it that bothered to go deeper than say "same offense, better defense and running". And even here, the side was so one sided in favor of accepting bWar as gospel, that any criticism (unusually high park adjustments, defensive measurements, differences in games played etc) of it got shouted down.

I mean there are actual people who think arguing the components of War (oWar, dWar, and the others) is actually not arguing war...


Edit: at least that is what seemed to stick out of the articles I remember reading.
   23. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4434518)
Old-timey sportswriters are just mad that theirs are no longer considered the final word on baseball.
   24. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4434523)
He isn't saying stats are bad or ruining the game, he's just talking about his view on how stats affect his own personal opinion of watching the game.

I have yet to meet someone who says this who understands the stats under discussion.

Here, yes. In published articles on it, even those supporting Trout...not so much.

Not relevant. Anyone can always point to the worse exemplars of a thing and note they're addressing something badly. Who cares? Really?
   25. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4434528)
Here, yes. In published articles on it, even those supporting Trout...not so much. They might have broke it down to oWar etc...

Googling "case for Trout over Cabrera", the first hit comes back from the little known publication called the NY Times. Doesn't even mention WAR.

I don't remember too many articles on it that bothered to go deeper than say "same offense, better defense and running".

How much deeper are you supposed to go exactly, especially with non-advanced stats. Similar offense from an elite fielding CF with 49 out of 55 steals, versus a lumbering third baseman, who probably should be at first or DH. THAT IS the non-sabermetric argument for Trout. And it's a slam dunk.

And even here, the side was so one sided in favor of accepting bWar as gospel, that any criticism (unusually high park adjustments, defensive measurements, differences in games played etc) of it got shouted down.

Again, you can completely ditch all of those, and still get Trout over Cabrera. The gap between the two simply wasn't small enough for an even semi-reasonable case for Cabrera. And the 'shouting down' came mostly from the "TRIPLE CROWN QED!!!!" brigade.
   26. cardsfanboy Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4434542)
How much deeper are you supposed to go exactly, especially with non-advanced stats. Similar offense from an elite fielding CF with 49 out of 55 steals, versus a lumbering third baseman, who probably should be at first or DH. THAT IS the non-sabermetric argument for Trout. And it's a slam dunk.

Again, you can completely ditch all of those, and still get Trout over Cabrera. The gap between the two simply wasn't small enough for an even semi-reasonable case for Cabrera. And the 'shouting down' came mostly from the "TRIPLE CROWN QED!!!!" brigade.


By elite fielding centerfielder, you are talking about a guy who played something like 116 games in centerfield. vs a guy who played something like 150 games at third base. You are talking about a guy who played in a stadium with a park factor of 92, that has historically been 98 or worse except in this one season. Versus a guy who's stadium jumped up to 105 from a 102(or better historically) You are talking about two players with close to 20 game difference in games played.

On a per game basis, it wasn't close, Trout trounces Cabrera. On a seasonal basis, it's a lot closer than the illusion that War gives.
   27. cardsfanboy Posted: May 05, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4434545)
Forget the Trout vs Cabrera non-relevant stuff.. This was a better than normal anti-stat article. If every anti-stat article was like this, I wouldn't have a problem with the anti-stat crowd. Unfortunately as a general rule, the type of attitude this write shows here is the exception, and not the rule.

The only quibble I have with the article is his strawman argument that a stat guy might make about a particular at bat. (Ryan Braun v Jason Motte) but beyond that, I'm perfectly fine with his opinion on the issue. It's not my opinion on the issue, but I can respect a guy who has this guys viewpoint vs the Murray Chass or Joe Morgan arguments.
   28. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: May 05, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4434583)
By elite fielding centerfielder, you are talking about a guy who played something like 116 games in centerfield. vs a guy who played something like 150 games at third base. You are talking about a guy who played in a stadium with a park factor of 92, that has historically been 98 or worse except in this one season. Versus a guy who's stadium jumped up to 105 from a 102(or better historically) You are talking about two players with close to 20 game difference in games played.

Knock 10% off his offensive value for the park factors, and knock his defense all the way down to average (which is waaay over-correcting on both fronts, even if you believe they are valid complaints), and you still get Trout in front.
   29. bobm Posted: May 05, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4434628)
   30. bobm Posted: May 05, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4434639)
Thanks, bob. I don't suppose it's possible to sort that list by RBI opportunities?

There is a sortable tool at Baseball Prospectus.
   31. Walt Davis Posted: May 05, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4434699)
The "pure mathematics" of sabermetrics. It requires addition and division and a little multiplication. Some of the formulas took some computing grunt to invert some matrices and, heck, there might have been a maximum likelihood estimator whipped out once or twice, probably all without the analyst understanding it, but that's not really pure mathematics. Not an integral to be found I don't think though and most of your baseball analysts probably don't remember arctangents any better than I do.

The math in sabermetrics is no more complicated than Census data. The poverty rate, much less your SAT score, is harder to calculate than wOBA.

Fair enough, the poverty rate does make it harder to enjoy consumer capitalism.
   32. BDC Posted: May 05, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4434767)
repeatedly pointed out here, that the case for Trout over Cabrera doesn't require any advanced statistics at all

Trout led league in Runs Scored by 20; Cabrera led in Runs Batted In by 11.

No, doesn't convince me either, but that's it in a "traditional" nutshell.

   33. gator92 Posted: May 05, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4434784)
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

Walt Whitman
   34. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4434791)
Fair enough, the poverty rate does make it harder to enjoy consumer capitalism.

Ray sneers at your bleeding heart "empathy".

-------------------

@33: Walt Whitman and his hyphens. Must be a gay thing.

   35. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: May 05, 2013 at 09:22 PM (#4434799)
Too long to quote here, but I thought the physicist Richard Feynman did a really good job explaining how knowing stuff about science makes looking at the stars more wonderful.

Similarly, I've had the great good fortune to talk about art techniques (like brushwork) with talented artists at a museum, and talk about writing nuts & bolts with poets and novelists, and walked in the woods with my Mom (who knows a lot about botany and zoology), and talked cell biology with my Dad (who used to teach cell biology). Those were great conversations, and remembering them continues to enrich my life. So there, Mr. "Baseball is Magic" Guy.
   36. Walt Davis Posted: May 06, 2013 at 01:07 AM (#4434885)
It was easy to spend hours discussing the relative merits of Stan Musial, Lou Brock, Bob Gibson, Ted Simmons, George Hendrick, Mark McGwire and Adam Wainwright.

Getting back to the article before we get hijacked by a discussion of late 19th century brush techniques ... c'mon, who spent hours discussing Mark McGwire without focusing on numbers? Lou Brock was a fine ballplayer but his career is all about the numbers.

And the discussion I recall around Hendrick was whether or not he was jaking it. And the numbers say ... well, he was pretty terrible defensively in CF and pretty average in RF. Obviously the debate about who's hustling and who's not is much better when there's nothing to back it up but opinion.

Of course they're baseball's greatest fans and I'm sure they can tell a true Cardinal when they smell one. Wait, sorry, that's Cardinal fans you can tell by their smell.
   37. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 06, 2013 at 01:38 AM (#4434899)
Too long to quote here, but I thought the physicist Richard Feynman did a really good job explaining how knowing stuff about science makes looking at the stars more wonderful.


Yup. I mean, you have to know something, right? Otherwise, what are you feeling awe and wonder about--pinholes in a black curtain?

How can knowing about the life cycle of a star, with all the processes, complexities, weights and distances, make looking at stars less majestic? In any case, underneath it all, you still have the mystery of what the hell everything is even doing here in the first place.
   38. Walt Davis Posted: May 06, 2013 at 03:38 AM (#4434911)
Well, the star knowledge that I find "depressing" is that they're actually so freaking far away. That the light I'm seeing is actually light from millions of years ago -- OK, that's cool until somebody points out that some of those stars I'm seeing are already gone. (Have we had any seeable stars disappear in the last 50 years?)

But, hey, NASA's working on a warp engine, 3d printers are promising to give us Trek-style replicators and smart phones are only an app or two away from being tricorder-communicators with a camera built in. I'm expecting to holiday on Rigel 7 before I die.
   39. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 06, 2013 at 03:41 AM (#4434912)
Also, since whole brain emulation in the form of downloading will soon be a reality, we'll be tucking a few hundred Walts into Bracewell probes and the like, and shuffling you off to various solar systems. The duration won't phase you since digital Walts can be set to wake as the probe nears the target system.
   40. Cooper Nielson Posted: May 06, 2013 at 04:19 AM (#4434915)
For single seasons, From 1961 to 2012, (requiring onbase_plus_slugging_plus>=150, RBI<=100 and Qualified for league batting title), sorted by smallest Runs Batted In

Wow, the Coors Field adjustment used to be severe. Jeff Cirillo is #7 on this list with 115 RBI in 2000 despite an OPS+ of "only" 100.

His actual slash line? A very attractive .326/.392/.477. An OPS of .869 in Coors was "average"!
   41. BDC Posted: May 06, 2013 at 08:55 AM (#4434951)
they're actually so freaking far away

"Le silence éternel des ces espaces infinis m'effraie" — Pascal
   42. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: May 06, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4435027)
I have to give credit to #11, that was hilarious.
   43. Ron J2 Posted: May 06, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4435044)
You are talking about a guy who played in a stadium with a park factor of 92, that has historically been 98 or worse except in this one season


This is flat wrong. It's not a one year thing and WAR doesn't use single year park factors.

This isn't the first time you've attempted this argument, nor is this the first time it's been refuted.

The single year batting park factors for Anaheim

2012: 91
2011: 92
2010: 94
2009: 102

So what changed the park so radically? Truthfully I don't know (though I suspect it's somehow related to work done on the scoreboard).

What I do know is that for 3 straight years Angel hitters have hit a lot more HR on the road (from 2010 to 2012, road HR 69, 62, 82 total 213 home HR 86, 93, 105, total 284) It's not quite as dramatic for the pitchers (216 to 260) and that this is basically 100% the explanation (and in a sense it doesn't matter why for 3 straight years it's been unusually tough to score in Anaheim)

EDIT: Sorry about the code tag
   44. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4435046)
If I’m looking at a beautiful photo of Mount Rainier, don’t spoil the moment with a geology lesson.


That's not very gneiss.
   45. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: May 06, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4435607)
Well, the star knowledge that I find "depressing" is that they're actually so freaking far away. That the light I'm seeing is actually light from millions of years ago -- OK, that's cool until somebody points out that some of those stars I'm seeing are already gone. (Have we had any seeable stars disappear in the last 50 years?

Actually most of the stars that you see at night are only within 50 to a few thousand light years away, if that makes you feel any better. And if a seeable star disappeared, the light from the resulting supernova would temporarily outshine THE ENTIRE GALAXY. The star Betelgeuse is believed to be on its last legs, with an impending supernova expected to occur within the next few centuries.
   46. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: May 07, 2013 at 04:35 AM (#4436042)
Actually most of the stars that you see at night are only within 50 to a few thousand light years away, if that makes you feel any better.

True, but there are a few galaxies we can see the light of with our unaided eyes. (Just to depress Walt further.) Andromeda is 2.2 million light years away. Don't recall offhand what the farthest object is we can see can see without assistance, but that's an entire galaxy and isn't as bright as some stars within one hundred light years.

   47. bobm Posted: May 07, 2013 at 07:13 AM (#4436056)
If I’m looking at a beautiful photo of Mount Rainier, don’t spoil the moment with a geology lesson.

That's not very gneiss.


I don't want to hear that schist.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(187 - 8:19pm, Aug 01)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(12 - 8:17pm, Aug 01)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(17 - 8:11pm, Aug 01)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(29 - 8:10pm, Aug 01)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(21 - 8:07pm, Aug 01)
Last: Zach

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(11 - 7:49pm, Aug 01)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogBill James Mailbag - 7/13/14 - 7/22/14 (Subscription Required)
(9 - 7:41pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(9 - 7:36pm, Aug 01)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(5 - 7:29pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGraphic designer creates Star Wars/MLB mash-up logos for all 30 teams
(3 - 7:27pm, Aug 01)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(29 - 7:27pm, Aug 01)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(46 - 7:11pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(1 - 6:47pm, Aug 01)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogNeyer: The Jim Johnson Gambit fails
(8 - 6:24pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(38 - 6:18pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.4912 seconds
52 querie(s) executed