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

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Paul Daugherty: I like RBI. I think RBI are important.

Arthur Koehler will testify that Daugherty indeed has a knot in his head.

I KIDNAPPED THE LINDBERGH BABY. Actually,  I wrote that a 3-hole hitter should drive in runs. Seems an obvious statement. Harmless, you know? Not to the metrics gurus.  I’m not getting into this, except to say it’s starting to get amusing. For suggesting RBIs are, you know, good, I am e-bombed by the SABR types… Apparently, I’m ignorant and lazy. I know nothing about baseball. Certainly not compared to them.

Well…

This happened before, several years ago, when I had the absolute gall to suggest that A. Dunn’s Ks were not exactly beneficial. The nice people posting at firejoemorgan.com told me how stupid I was then. Eh, so what, you know? Get out from behind your Mac and live a little.

The cool thing about baseball is there are any number of ways to measure a player’s success. Some of the new ways, I like. Some, I don’t. It’s an opinion. It is, as metrics high priest Bill James has said, a way to add enjoyment to watching a game. The metrics people have become like the fervid soccer crowd. If you disagree with them, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you don’t like soccer, you’re stoopid. If you refuse to concede that getting on base is vital, but driving in people who are on base is trivial, you are plankton.

I don’t especially care what the higher life forms behind the laptops think. I like RBI. I think RBI are important. (So, by the way, do Jocketty, Baker and Brennaman. The former has a couple rings, the middleman has 1,600 wins and the latter has a plaque in an important place. Metrics guys have fast computers.) I will continue to think people who drive in runs are every bit as important as people who score them.

Silly, stupid me.

Repoz Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:59 AM | 60 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: reds, 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. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 06:40 AM (#4455456)
The metrics people have become like the fervid soccer crowd.

He's saying I've become like...myself? I don't get it.
   2. Bug Selig Posted: May 30, 2013 at 07:02 AM (#4455460)
Adam Dunn averaged 98 RBI for the 3 years in Cincinnati during which he led the league in strikeouts (and PD was presumably ripping him). Maybe they weren't important yet.
   3. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:09 AM (#4455516)
I like Runs. I think Runs are important.
   4. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4455525)
Silly, stupid me.

Would have saved me some time if he had just led with this.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:24 AM (#4455530)
"the latter has a plaque in an important place."

here's a guy who thinks he dodged the error of "Brennaman is a Hall of Famer," for which he would have been made fun of by the soccer-loving types.

Instead, they can note that Brennaman doesn't actually have a plaque there, either. He does have his name on one with a bunch of other guys, though.

   6. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4455536)
I will just remind folks that paul has repeatedly picked this type of 'fight' in his columns because he knows it generates clicks and responses.

   7. TomH Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:36 AM (#4455544)
looking for positives; he did say "I will continue to think people who drive in runs are every bit as important as people who score them.". Note; not more important. Unfortunately he seems to buy the fuax thinking that for a #3, RBI ARE more impt, as if somehow scoring runs is only impt if you bat 1st or 2nd. And maybe not even 2nd; those guys,like Zach Cozart, are just there to move others along so the #3 and #4 can drive them in, right Dusty? Oh, sorry, I digress.

And in the article, he states that if the Reds and Pirates merged, he would let Marte start for the Reds, but not McCutchen. Apparently those silly SABRites with their aversion to small sample sizes do not relate to who is the best Right Now!

Did I say I was looking for positives? Sorry again. I found one. That was it.
   8. BDC Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4455548)
RBI-hatred is like the War on Christmas: an assertion made in the fervent hope that If You Troll Them They Will Come :)
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4455564)
I don't like Paul Daugherty, and I don't think Paul Daugherty is important.

Remember when "sportswriter" wasn't just another way of saying "professional troll"?
   10. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: May 30, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4455607)
Say what you want to about Paul Daugherty, but he's out there every day, onion tied to his belt, telling stories that don't go anywhere with the best of them.
   11. Matt Welch Posted: May 30, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4455655)
The #3 hitters for the Giants last year hit .323/.370/.492, just 19 HRs, and more Rs (113) than RBI (100). Damn sabre-ists!

2011 & 2010 World Series champs also had more Rs than RBI. 2009 Yanks had the more RBI. I would wager that #3-hitter runs would outpace RBI on World Series champs at least 60% of the time.
   12. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4455667)
I like RBI and think they have some meaning.

   13. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4455708)
Can't RBIs (I hate the RBI plural construct, no offense BLB) have some meaning but be lousy ways of comparing people? It seems that the two crowds just talk past each other.
   14. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4455719)
You could at least be correct about it and say RsBI, I mean come on.
   15. Rants Mulliniks Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4455738)
Its like Attorneys General or Governors General. Everyone puts the S on the General, which is incorrect.
   16. gehrig97 Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4455743)
Wait wait... who DOESN'T like RBI? What's not to like? Do I like OBP more? Yes. Me and OBP are besties. Do I think runs are hotter than RBI? Yep. But I always preferred brunettes to blondes. That said, RBI isn't "meaningless" -- they're just not the best indicator of a player's worth.
   17. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4455745)
I like Arby's.
   18. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4455757)
Everyone puts the S on the General, which is incorrect.


But does anyone say AsG?

Once you acronym, I think you should simply follow what sounds the most sensible, and that's RBIs or AGs.
   19. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4455764)
Once you acronym, I think you should simply follow what sounds the most sensible, and that's RBIs or AGs.


In what world does 'Runs Batted Ins' sound "sensible"?

Nobody ####### that "deer" is the plural of "deer"...
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4455785)
In what world does 'Runs Batted Ins' sound "sensible"?


I'm talking about saying "RBIs," rather than "RBI" or "RsBI." The former simply sounds better, and thus should be employed.
   21. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4455786)
English, man. English.
   22. Davo Dozier Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4455807)
I'm sorta coming around to the idea that, if you have a team with a power hitter who swings at everything (your Nelson Cruz/Pablo Sandoval types), the best spot in the lineup to place them is in the #3 hole.
   23. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4455808)
Ribbies!

That said, RBI isn't "meaningless" -- they're just not the best indicator of a player's worth.

This is my take. They have meaning in that they record what actually happened. A guy got a hit (or whatever) that caused a guy to score a run. It has meaning.

I agree that they aren't the best indicator of player worth. They're down the list of stats when comparing players.

   24. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4455818)
This is my take. They have meaning in that they record what actually happened. A guy got a hit (or whatever) that caused a guy to score a run. It has meaning.


They're a narrative or descriptive stat, and work particularly well at the game level. The guy who had 3 RBIs in a 5-4 win probably had the big hit (or hits), even if he just went 1-5 with a double.

They're pretty effective at capturing just what they are designed to capture. As with most stats, the problem isn't with RBIs, it's with the people who use them.
   25. Publius Publicola Posted: May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4455837)
This is my take. They have meaning in that they record what actually happened. A guy got a hit (or whatever) that caused a guy to score a run. It has meaning.


What I would like to see is this idea elaborated further. For instance, if you get up and there are men on first and second, and you hit a single that scores the man on second and the man on first takes third, you should get credited with the equivalent of 5 bases- your own single and the 4 bases the other two baserunners gained. If you fly out to deep right, so deep that both runners advance, then you are credited with two bases. SLG only measures what you do for yourself, not what you do in the aggregate for the entire team.
   26. Squash Posted: May 30, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4455856)
Sometimes these guys seem like they're writing from 2006. The fervor has died way, way down on this, mostly because saber stats have been widely accepted and even go on the scoreboard now. But to get into it:

Eh, so what, you know? Get out from behind your Mac and live a little.

The idea that some pasty sportswriter who's spent the last 30 years living in a press box talking only to other sportswriters is doing more living than the saber crowd, which tends to be (somewhat) younger, fiery, and not indisposed to raisin' a little hell, is odd. Where exactly did this meme start and how did it get so popular? Because if I compare the people I know who are saber fans vs. your average 55 year old bad-tie wearing suburban sportswriter, we're doing a hell of a lot more livin'.
   27. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: May 30, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4455887)
One RBI, two RBI. Simple.
   28. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: May 30, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4455929)

They're a narrative or descriptive stat, and work particularly well at the game level. The guy who had 3 RBIs in a 5-4 win probably had the big hit (or hits), even if he just went 1-5 with a double.


Pretty much. Like all stats, they are useful if you use them right.
   29. Ron J2 Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:11 PM (#4455942)
#13 RBIs are pretty clearly a function of opportunity (most simply represent by at bats with runners on base -- though actual distribution matters. It's trivially obvious that it's easier to drive in Mike Trout from third than a random Molina from first. In the long run it tends to even out. In the short run distribution of baserunners is huge in explaining a player's RBI totals in a season) and power (most simply represented by slugging percentage. But you actually do a little better if you break things down into BA and ISO [SLG-BA]. Given equal opportunity and a typical distribution of runners if two guys have the same SLG, the guy with the lower BA will tend to drive in a few more runs)

A player can't really control the opportunity so to my mind raw RBI totals offer nothing that a player's SLG gives us.

Now you can argue for credit for RBI above the expected given his power and opportunity. I can see a form of clutch argument there (Though it's not 100% credit. A certain percentage of the guys you drive in would have been driven in by the next hitter if you'd failed)

The other problem with rbi as a metric is that it implicitly treats a walk as a failure.
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4455947)
The other problem with rbi as a metric is that it implicitly treats a walk as a failure.


Less than home runs do.
   31. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4455954)
The former simply sounds better...


No, it sounds like you have a speech impediment.
   32. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4455961)
The other problem with rbi as a metric is that it implicitly treats a walk as a failure.

Not if you walk with the bases loaded!
   33. Ron J2 Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4455965)
#30 I see where you're going, but then I've never advocated evaluating a player by his HR total either.

But the larger point about walks is that there's some value to a team in simply not consuming outs even if the walk results in neither a run nor an rbi.

Some of the earliest work in sabrmetics was done by Steve Mann (with Pete Palmer pitching in for some of the mathematical heavy lifting) for the Phillies in the 70s. They were trying to model a player's contributions to the offense by runs and rbi and simply could not get it to work until Palmer hit on the idea of an OBP corrector. OBPs above .330 proved to have a value that didn't show up in that player's run scored totals. Basic idea is that there's a finite number of outs available and the fewer you consume the more there are for your teammates.

And #32 I used to include a disclaimer about bases loaded walks.
   34. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4455966)
Not if you walk with the bases loaded!


Bringing us back to Votto and Phillips. Brandon had a bases-loaded walk for an RBI earlier this season. He did this right after Votto walked to load the bases!
   35. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4455975)
One RBI, two RBI. Simple.
   36. zonk Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4455977)
I hate when people use these damnable acronyms -- Runs Batted In, please...
   37. zonk Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4455981)
RBI-hatred is like the War on Christmas: an assertion made in the fervent hope that If You Troll Them They Will Come


Actually, RBI is within Christmas' sphere of influence --- so an assassination of the archduke Counting Stat is sure to turn this little conflict into a worldwide conflagration.
   38. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: May 30, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4455991)
One RBI, two RBI. Simple.
   39. TomH Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4456005)
Red RBI, Blue RBI? This one has a little car?
   40. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4456017)
But the larger point about walks is that there's some value to a team in simply not consuming outs even if the walk results in neither a run nor an rbi.


And this seems to be a point that most people (outside of stat-inclined folk) still can't see, or don't think has value.
   41. madvillain Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4456023)
I like turtles, and strawmen.
   42. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:20 PM (#4456027)
No, it sounds like you have a speech impediment.


One RBI, two RBI. Simple.

I hate to break it to you two, but you've both lost. You can keep insisting you're right, but the plural of RBI is RBIs.
   43. gehrig97 Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4456042)
Sometimes these guys seem like they're writing from 2006. The fervor has died way, way down on this, mostly because saber stats have been widely accepted and even go on the scoreboard now.


Yup. The article is silly. I don't think any reasonably informed observer of the game views RBI like they did 20 years ago. I always thought the one-and-done Joe Carter HOF ballot served as an ersatz referendum on the RBI vs "geeky stats like OBP" as a measure of value (then again... see Rice, Jim). While no one thought Carter would make the HOF, I think the general expectation was he'd stick around on the ballot for a coupla-tree years due to his boatloads of RBI.

   44. SoSH U at work Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4456045)
#30 I see where you're going, but then I've never advocated evaluating a player by his HR total either.


I didn't think you did. But nobody here has advocated evaluating a player by his RBI total either.

   45. Rants Mulliniks Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4456057)
Joe Carter is the poster boy for a player you used to think was good, then when he retired you went and looked at his B-R page. I guess he's still "good" of course, but not HoVG good.
   46. Cyril Morong Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4456062)
Here is what Branch Rickey said about RBI in that 1954 LIFE magazine article while discussing the best formula for judging teams and players

"...after giving it a thorough trial we found there was still

no place for RBIs in the formula.

As a statistic,

RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest.

They depended on managerial control, a hitter's position in the batting order, park dimensions and the success of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him."

Here is the link to the article

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/pages/essays/rickey/goodby_to_old_idea.htm
   47. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4456073)
Cyril, I guess Rickey needed to step away from his Mac and actually watch a ballgame! :-)
   48. Rennie's Tenet Posted: May 30, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4456074)
no place for RBIs in the formula...RBIs were not only misleading but dishonest.


Thus, Rickey preferred RBIs to RBI. I think that closes this one.

Also, I just want to note that when Rickey says RBIs "were not only misleading but dishonest," it might well mean that he loved the stat.
   49. Ron J2 Posted: May 30, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4456099)
Also, I just want to note that when Rickey says RBIs "were not only misleading but dishonest," it might well mean that he loved the stat.


But he found they were seeing other GMs on the side.
   50. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: May 30, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4456124)
I like RBI/RBIs/RsBI. Um, ribbies. I like them, as opposed to finding them analytically valuable or anything like that. They help paint a portrait of a player.

Let's say a guy has 28 homers. The number of RBIs that he has tells you something interesting about the player. If he has 110 RBIs, then he's probably a No. 3 hitter, a good hitter for average who can also stroke a lot of double. If he has 66 RBIs, that could suggest he's either a low-average slugger or perhaps a guy in the middle of a superstar season who's getting pitched around a lot. Fans of a certain age were used to this type of visual. Sabermetrics removes the objective importance of RBIs, but not the subjective aspect of it filling out an image of a player.

Shorter version: The only reason Tommy Herr's 1985 and 1987 seasons are cool is the ridiculous disconnect between his homers and his runs batted in totals. Otherwise, those would be good years (well, not 1987), but forgettable.
   51. Steve Treder Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4456137)
The only reason Tommy Herr's 1985 and 1987 seasons are cool is the ridiculous disconnect between his homers and his runs batted in totals.

Yeah, I've always had a particularly soft spot for seasons like those. Wes Parker, 1970. George Kell, 1950. Enos Slaughter, 1946 (and 1950, and 1952). Floyd Robinson, 1962.

Those are fun.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Hank Majeski, 1948.
   52. spike Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4456160)
I like big bats and RBI
You statisticians can't deny
That when a hitter bats with a man on base
And smacks that round thing into space
You get sprung, wanna put in a PH
'Cause you notice that pitch got crushed by your DH....

My fan base don't want none unless it plates runs hon.
   53. base ball chick Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4456161)
you notice there have been more homers by PITCHERS this month than by royals position players including the (uck) DH
   54. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4456164)
An abbreviation used as a noun is a noun, no matter what the abbreviation previously stood for. So RBIs (or RBI's if you're using the NY Times handbook) and runs batted in are not mutually exclusive.



   55. DA Baracus Posted: May 30, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4456167)
#52 is excellent.
   56. TDF, situational idiot Posted: May 30, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4456171)
My comment on the Enquirer website about the article:
Here's the thing - You go to bat trying to get a hit or a walk, anything to avoid an out. If someone's in scoring position, or you hit the ball hard enough to hit an HR, you can accumulate RBI. RBI are good because scoring runs is good, but they're merely a byproduct of (1) accomlishing what you're really trying to do and (2) the guy(s) ahead of you doing the same. They aren't a good way of evaluating a player because of (2) which the batter has no control over.

Joey Votto is a great hitter, one of the 2 best in the game today. More RBI doesn't make him better, and fewer doesn't make him worse (it's not his fault he's constantly hit behind guys like Stubbs and Cozart).
   57. Greg K Posted: May 30, 2013 at 06:16 PM (#4456180)
(it's not his fault he's constantly hit behind guys like Stubbs and Cozart).

This year it's Choo (.449 OBP) and Cozart (.266 OBP). Which mashed together counts as an ok couple of hitters at the top of the lineup?
   58. Cyril Morong Posted: May 30, 2013 at 06:41 PM (#4456199)
This year the leadoff spot for the Reds has a .443 OBP and the 2nd slot has .283. For all of the NL they are .338 and .315. Votto has only batted 3rd this year
   59. BDC Posted: May 30, 2013 at 07:47 PM (#4456247)
Joe Carter is the poster boy for a player you used to think was good, then when he retired you went and looked at his B-R page. I guess he's still "good" of course, but not HoVG good

By career Award Shares, Carter's closest comp is Carlton Fisk (HOF). By B-Ref's "raw" similarity scores, his closest comp is Dale Murphy (HOVG, right?) By OPS+ and PA, his closest comp is Garret Anderson. I think with that last comp, we're on to something. Like Carter, Anderson was certainly a good player who had some good years. But also like Carter, Anderson was seen as the veteran-presence run producer for champions, and accumulated a lot of mystique points. (And oddly enough, both Carter and Anderson had World-Series-winning hits, though Anderson's came in the third inning.)
   60. TDF, situational idiot Posted: May 30, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4456279)
This year it's Choo (.449 OBP) and Cozart (.266 OBP). Which mashed together counts as an ok couple of hitters at the top of the lineup?
Cinci's #2 hitter is 25th in MLB in OBP this year (granted, they're #1 out of the leadoff). The #3 spot (Votto) is #2 in OPS, #23 in RBI (Votto's driven Choo in 8 times, but Cozart only 3 times).

In '12, they were #30 in leadoff OBP, #22 from the 2nd spot. OPS from #3 was 3rd (mostly Votto, BP when Votto was hurt), #25 in RBI.

In '11, they were #8 in leadoff OBP, #17 from the 2nd spot. OPS from #3 was 3rd (Votto), #10 in RBI.

In '10, they were #27 in leadoff OBP, #7 from the 2nd spot. OPS from #3 was 1st (Votto's MVP year), RBI #2.

In '09, they were #29 in leadoff OBP (Wily Taveras!), #27 from the 2nd spot. OPS from #3 was 7th (mostly Votto), RBI somehow #7.

That's a lot of suck hitting in front of him over the last 5 years.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3736 - 3:28pm, Jul 30)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogRed Sox trade rumors: 'Very good chance' John Lackey and Jon Lester are traded - Over the Monster
(18 - 3:28pm, Jul 30)
Last: DKDC

NewsblogPosnanski: Four theories about Hall of Fame voting changes
(3 - 3:28pm, Jul 30)
Last: DanG

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(34 - 3:27pm, Jul 30)
Last: donlock

NewsblogVICE: Baseball Erotica #1: John Smoltz and Tom Glavine
(4 - 3:25pm, Jul 30)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(90 - 3:25pm, Jul 30)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogThe Untold and Insanely Weird Story of A-Rod’s Doping Habits (and why MLB quietly banned EPO, cycling’s drug of choice)
(3 - 3:24pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(135 - 3:22pm, Jul 30)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogCardinals To Acquire Justin Masterson
(7 - 3:18pm, Jul 30)
Last: Non-Youkilidian Geometry

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(69 - 3:13pm, Jul 30)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(63 - 3:11pm, Jul 30)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-30-2014
(8 - 2:58pm, Jul 30)
Last: The Chronicles of Reddick

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-30-2014
(18 - 2:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogValencia traded to Toronto
(15 - 2:47pm, Jul 30)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPosnanski: Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty
(4 - 2:38pm, Jul 30)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

Page rendered in 0.2835 seconds
52 querie(s) executed