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

Monday, October 22, 2012

Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2012

Frank Chance, not just burning bridges, but napalming them in the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, October 22, 1912:

I dare [Cubs owner Charles] Murphy to give me my release. That fellow hasn’t got nerve enough to turn me loose…I’ve refused to be insulted all these years, although he insulted every one of the players…Murphy didn’t get more than three good players for me during my seven years under him. And he got them for nothing. He wouldn’t loosen up any coin, you can bet on that…The way Murphy is getting his players is a joke. He doesn’t try to buy any real players out of the class AA or A leagues. Instead, he sends his scouts into class B, C and D leagues, hoping to pick up a star for $150.

Yowch. The Cubs waived Chance a couple weeks later.

Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:11 AM | 68 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dugout, frank chance, history

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. Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:16 AM (#4278715)
Good offense on today's Birthday Team. That's an extremely speedy outfield.

C/Manager: Bill Carrigan
1B: Jimmie Foxx
2B: Robinson Cano
3B: Michael Barrett
SS: Sam Bohne
LF: Harry Walker
CF: Gerald Young
RF: Ichiro Suzuki

SP: Wilbur Wood
SP: Johnny Morrison
SP: Oscar Jones
SP: Jumbo Elliott
SP: Kid Carsey
RP: Cecil Upshaw
RP: Hector Carrasco

Owner: Phil Ball
Not an adult film star: Chick Lathers
One career at bat, one home run as an Indian: Jamie Quirk
   2. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:31 AM (#4278721)
Someone to consider, perhaps, for tomorrow's birthday team.
   3. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:50 AM (#4278727)
Historical item at THT notes that today marks 40,000 days since the debut of Mordecai Brown.

Just heard on the radio: the Giants are 0-5 all-time in Game Sevens.

From memory, they lost 1962, and 2002 World Series Game Sevens. 1924 and 1912. (looks it up) 1987 NLCS.
   4. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 22, 2012 at 08:21 AM (#4278740)
Murphy didn’t get more than three good players for me during my seven years under him.


What's interesting here is that Chance is basically correct. In 1906 the Cubs picked up Orval Overall and Jack Taylor, but after that they didn't make a single deal of consequence in-season until 1911 when Johnny Kling was traded in an eight-player deal with Boston. Their significant pickups after 1906 were mostly players purchased from the minors or acquired in the minor league draft.

-- MWE
   5. just plain joe Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:16 AM (#4278768)
What's interesting here is that Chance is basically correct. In 1906 the Cubs picked up Orval Overall and Jack Taylor, but after that they didn't make a single deal of consequence in-season until 1911 when Johnny Kling was traded in an eight-player deal with Boston. Their significant pickups after 1906 were mostly players purchased from the minors or acquired in the minor league draft.


Of course since the Cubs were far and away the best team in the NL during that period this shouldn't have been much of an issue. The Cubs won the NL pennant in 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1910; they finished 2nd in 1909 (despite winning 104 games) and were 2nd again in 1911 (winning winning 92 games). It is easy to make the argument that they didn't need to make any sweeping changes, and were wise not to do so.
   6. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4278773)
Just heard on the radio: the Giants are 0-5 all-time in Game Sevens.

From memory, they lost 1962, and 2002 World Series Game Sevens. 1924 and 1912. (looks it up) 1987 NLCS.


Actually, the Giants won Game 7 in 1912; it just wasn't the decisive game of the series, thanks to the tie in Game 2. They also won Game 7 in 1921, with the same caveat, this time due to the fact that it was a best-of-9 series. So the correct phrasing would appear to be, "the Giants are 0-5 in winner-take-all games." Except that's not true either, because they won Game 5 in the LDS this year and in '02, so it's "the Giants are 0-5 in winner-take-all games in best-of-7 series."
   7. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4278829)
OK, in honor of "The Giants and Tigers have never met in the World Series," a series of trivia questions dealing with World Series matchups.

1. The three most common matchups all feature the Yankees; I'm sure you're as shocked as I was. Who are their opponents in the three matchups, and which of them is the most common?
2. There is a two-way tie for most common matchup not including the Yankees. Name both matchups.
3. Which two teams are tied for second behind the Yankees in number of distinct opponents faced in a World Series?
4. Six of the eight original NL teams have played the Yankees in the Series more often than any other opponent. One has another team they've played more, but is already featured in question 2. The eighth team, however, has played the Yankees and another opponent the same number of times. Name this team and its non-Yankee nemesis.
5. Which team has played in the largest number of World Series without facing an expansion team?
6. Which team has played in the most World Series without ever having a rematch?
7. Which of the original franchises has played the smallest number of distinct opponents?
8. Which franchise has played as many distinct opponents among expansion teams as among originals?
9. The Yankees are the only team to play all of the original franchises in the other league. Which two teams have faced 7 of the 8, and which teams do they need to complete the set?
10. We've avoided the Yankees long enough for a round of World Series trivia. Name the only two franchises to make the Series from the NL who have also managed to avoid them.
   8. Randy Jones Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4278839)
1. Yankees-Dodgers most common. Will guess Giants and Cardinals are the other two.
3. A's and Cardinals?
5. Pirates?
10. Astros and Rockies
   9. JJ1986 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4278844)
4. Cubs (and Tiger?)
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4278850)
2. Cardinals-Red Sox, Cards-Tigers?
5. Dodgers
6. Indians?
7. Cubs?

   11. JJ1986 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4278856)
Total guesses:

9. A's (haven't played Atlanta), Cardinals (haven't played White Sox)
   12. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4278857)
1. Yankees-Dodgers (and Giants and Cardinals) are correct. The Yanks and Dodgers have faced off 11 times, all of them within a 41-year span.
2. Neither Cards-Sox nor Cards-Tigers are correct here. Cubs-Tigers, although guessed for #4, is actually one of the answers to this one.
3. Cardinals yes, A's no.
5. Dodgers, yes. Somehow they've won 18 pennants and never played an expansion team in the Series.
6. The Indians have played the Braves twice, so no.
7. Not the Cubs.
10. Astros and Rockies, yes. Both of them have only won one pennant, which means that no team has won multiple NL pennants without playing the Yankees at least once.
   13. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4278858)
The A's actually have played the Braves, although not the Atlanta version (Philly A's and Boston Braves in 1914). They haven't played the Pirates or Phillies, however. The Cards are missing both the White Sox and Indians.
   14. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4278861)
The White Sox have never even played in a deciding Game Five, Seven, or Nine.
   15. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4278864)
6. Orioles (EDIT: Never mind; somehow their two blown 3-1 leads in 7-game World Series losses to the Pirates to bookend the 1970s blurred together in my mind.)
7. Indians
   16. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4278867)
4. Reds (A's)
   17. JJ1986 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4278871)
6. Mets?
   18. Randy Jones Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4278872)
8. Phillies?
   19. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4278876)
4. Reds (A's)

Nope. A's twice ('72 and '90), but Yankees 3 times ('39, '61, and '76).

7. Indians

Yes. They've played the Giants, Dodgers, Marlins, and Braves (twice). Every other original franchise has faced at least 5 distinct opponents.

Correct answers so far:
1. Dodgers (and Giants and Cardinals)
2. Cubs-Tigers (and one to go)
3. Cardinals (and one to go)
4.
5. Dodgers
6.
7. Indians
8. Phillies
9.
10. Astros and Rockies
   20. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4278881)
8. Phillies?

Yes. Yanks, Orioles, and Red Sox among originals, Royals, Blue Jays, and Rays among expansion teams.

6. Mets?

Close, but no; there's one team with more.
   21. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4278883)
#8 is the Phillies.
BSN, NY, BAL
KC, TOR, TB

EDIT: A 4 minute old beverage to Randy Jones, although in my defense I didn't use a question mark. :)
   22. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4278888)
9. Dodgers (Red Sox)
   23. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4278892)
nevermind, wrong number.
   24. Randy Jones Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4278894)
6. White Sox?
   25. Randy Jones Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4278895)
#8 is the Phillies.
BSN, NY, BAL
KC, TOR, TB

EDIT: A 4 minute old beverage to Randy Jones, although in my defense I didn't use a question mark. :)


I knew the Phillies hadn't played in the WS often, but I could only remember Yankees, Orioles and Blue Jays, Rays. You had all 6 teams they faced.
   26. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4278899)
9. Dodgers (Red Sox)

The Dodgers are correct, but the Sox aren't the missing team; they faced off in the first Series Brooklyn ever played in, 1916.

6. White Sox?

Yup. 5 Series appearances against 5 separate teams.

Bonus fact that I wasn't able to turn into a question: No expansion team has ever had a World Series rematch.
   27. Sweatpants Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4278902)
The missing team for the Dodgers is the Tigers.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4278905)
The Dodgers are correct, but the Sox aren't the missing team; they faced off in the first Series Brooklyn ever played in, 1916.


And the Dodgers' non-opponent would be the Indians (edit: guess not. Can't believe the Tigers have never played the Giants or Dodgers).

And the Sox are the other team in 9, missing only the Braves.

   29. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4278910)
The missing team for the Dodgers is the Tigers.

Yes.

And the Dodgers' non-opponent would be the Indians (edit: guess not. Can't believe the Tigers have never played the Giants or Dodgers).

And the Sox are the other team in 9, missing only the Braves.


Played the Indians in 1920. And you're correct on the Sox and Braves.

Correct answers so far:
1. Dodgers (and Giants and Cardinals)
2. Cubs-Tigers (and one to go)
3. Cardinals (and one to go)
4.
5. Dodgers
6. White Sox
7. Indians
8. Phillies
9. Dodgers (Tigers), Red Sox (Braves)
10. Astros and Rockies

Still missing half of the answer to #2 and #3, and the answer to #4.
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4278913)
2. A's-Giants?

   31. JJ1986 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4278914)
I think 4 has to be the Pirates (and Orioles).
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4278915)
I think 4 has to be the Pirates.


Yes. With?

Edit: Damn edit function. Yes, it's the O's.

   33. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4278922)
2. A's-Giants?

Yes. Four times (1905, '11, '13, and '89), even with Cubs-Tigers ('07, '08, '35, and '45).

I think 4 has to be the Pirates (and Orioles).

Also correct ('71 and '79, as Kiko mentioned earlier; played the Yankees in '27 and '60).
   34. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4278927)
Think the other answer to #2 is Giants-A's. 1905, 1911, 1913, and 1989.

-- MWE

EDIT: Coke to SoSH U
   35. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4278934)
Of course since the Cubs were far and away the best team in the NL during that period this shouldn't have been much of an issue.


They were really only far and away the best team in the league in 1906 and 1907; by 1908 the Pirates and Giants had caught up. But the point's otherwise well-taken; the Cubs really didn't need anyone else.

-- MWE
   36. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4278937)
Correct answers so far:
1. Dodgers (and Giants and Cardinals)
2. Cubs-Tigers and A's-Giants
3. Cardinals (and one to go)
4. Pirates (Orioles)
5. Dodgers
6. White Sox
7. Indians
8. Phillies
9. Dodgers (Tigers), Red Sox (Braves)
10. Astros and Rockies

One left.
   37. Sweatpants Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4278941)
3. Red Sox?
   38. BDC Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4278942)
I missed the whole trivia question. This is what that whole "going to class" thing gets me :)

It's such a good question, though, that it points out one thing to regret about interleague play (apart from its sheer pointlessness). The Giants and Tigers (if SF does win tonight) have never played in a Series (dang Merkle), but they've certainly played regular-season games. So the whole mystique of teams that have gone a century without ever meeting is ruined, permanently. It's nothing big, just a little tarnish on the event, should it happen.

Tigers-Cardinals, now, we seem to get that every few years. I'm for the Tigers no matter what.
   39. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4278946)
3. Red Sox?

Indeed. Both they and the Cardinals have played 9 separate opponents: Cards, Pirates, Giants, Phillies, Dodgers, Reds, Cubs, Mets, and Rockies for the Sox, and Yankees, Orioles, A's, Red Sox, Tigers, Twins, Royals, Rangers, and Brewers for the Cards. (The Yankees, of course, have played 12.)
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4278951)
Great quiz Eric. To me, the most amazing fact about WS matchups is the fact that more than 50 years after the first wave, we still haven't had an all-expansion World Series.

   41. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4278953)
When was the last WS to feature two teams who had never won?

When was the last WS to feature 2 teams who had never been there before?
   42. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4278955)
The Giants and Tigers (if SF does win tonight) have never played in a Series (dang Merkle)

Other (somewhat) near misses:
1987: Both teams win their divisions, but lose in the LCS. (The Tigers would have won the pennant without divisional play, but the Giants wouldn't have.)
1934: Tigers win the pennant, Giants finish 2 back of the Cards.
1924: Giants win the pennant, Tigers finish 6 behind the Senators (and in third).

That's really about it... the Giants were 9 games out in '68, and there are a few other second-place teams that weren't serious contenders (the '37 Tigers were not catching the Yankees, for instance). And since the advent of divisional play, '87 and this year are the only times both teams have made the playoffs.
   43. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4278958)
When was the last WS to feature two teams who had never won?

1980, wasn't it? I think it has to be, because the Phils were the last original team to win and there's never been an all-expansion matchup.
   44. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4278960)
To me, the most amazing fact about WS matchups is the fact that more than 50 years after the first wave, we still haven't had an all-expansion World Series.


Closest was 2000 and 2001, when the NL was won by expansion teams both years, and the Yankees beat the Mariners in the ALCS both years.
   45. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4278961)
When was the last WS to feature 2 teams who had never been there before?

Holy crap, is it 1906? I think it is.
   46. JJ1986 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4278964)
Closest was 2000 and 2001, when the NL was won by expansion teams both years, and the Yankees beat the Mariners in the ALCS both years.


1986 was extremely close.
   47. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4278965)
yes, the answers are 1980 and 1906. The first 3 WS featured teams which had never been there, and then every one since has had at least one. Here's hoping for Mariners/Nationals in 2 years, provided the Nats don't get there next year.
   48. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4278967)
1986 was extremely close.


Ah, yep. Missed that one. 1980 as well.
   49. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4278969)
Expanding on the same theme:

Last Series featuring two teams with one combined appearance?
Last Series featuring two teams that had yet to make multiple appearances?
   50. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4278970)
Ah, yep. Missed that one. 1980 as well.

Yeah, 1980 especially, since the NLCS that year is one of the best playoff series ever.
   51. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4278975)
And of course, last year had one expansion team and one losing in the opposite LCS as well.
   52. BDC Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4278987)
Holy crap, is it 1906? I think it is

Wow. I sometimes put myself to sleep at night running through the managers of pennant-winners. It's not very common to have a matchup of two managers who have never been in a Series before (the last one was 2008, Maddon/Manuel, and then 2005 and 2002, but before that, was it 1986?) So I should have known that 1906 was the last Series between two first-time entrants, but it's fascinating that it hasn't happened since. The chances anymore are desperate; wouldn't it have to be Washington/Seattle at this point?
   53. just plain joe Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4278988)
It's such a good question, though, that it points out one thing to regret about interleague play (apart from its sheer pointlessness). The Giants and Tigers (if SF does win tonight) have never played in a Series (dang Merkle), but they've certainly played regular-season games. So the whole mystique of teams that have gone a century without ever meeting is ruined, permanently. It's nothing big, just a little tarnish on the event, should it happen.


This; the World Series was more special before interleague play (and before it became the championship round of a post-season tournament). I still watch but much of the mystique has gone by the board.

   54. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4278998)
Last Series featuring two teams with one combined appearance?


1907?

Last Series featuring two teams that had yet to make multiple appearances?


1912?
   55. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4279029)
1907?
1912?


No to both. It's happened since then in both cases (and 1912 doesn't qualify; the Giants played in the Series in '05 and '11).

Both correct answers include one of the same teams.
   56. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4279036)
Last Series featuring two teams with one combined appearance?


1920?
   57. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4279043)
1920?

Yup - Dodgers (or Robins, at the time) 1, Indians 0.
   58. BDC Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4279051)
So is 1948 (Indians-Braves) the other?
   59. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4279053)
1920?

Yup - Dodgers (or Robins, at the time) 1, Indians 0.


That would have to be the answer for both then. Unless you mean both teams had one and only one. In that case, as far as I can see, never.

edit: Never mind.
   60. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4279054)
So is 1948 (Indians-Braves) the other?

It is indeed.
   61. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4279057)
Remaining teams that could produce one of these types of matchup: The Nats and Mariners have yet to win a pennant; the D'Backs, Astros, Rockies, Angels, Rays, and Brewers have one each.

Starting next year, it seems like Astros-Brewers would be the weirdest possible World Series matchup, right?
   62. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4279068)
Starting next year, it seems like Astros-Brewers would be the weirdest possible World Series matchup, right?


Astros-Cubs would be pretty damn weird. Two WS appearances, both against Chicago clubs.
   63. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4279073)
Astros-Rockies would feature two teams who have both been to a World Series but neither of whom has ever won a World Series game.
   64. esseff Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4279075)
Starting next year, it seems like Astros-Brewers would be the weirdest possible World Series matchup, right?


You mean an ex-NL team now in the AL playing against an ex-AL team now in the NL.

Is that as weird as the notion the Astros will be anywhere near a World Series in the foreseeable future?
   65. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4279079)
Is that as weird as the notion the Astros will be anywhere near a World Series in the foreseeable future?


I was going to second SoSH's suggestion, because an Astros-Cubs World Series in 2013 would have to have been preceded by the absolutely strangest series of events in regular-season and postseason history to bring us to that point.
   66. SoSH U at work Posted: October 22, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4279107)
More potential weirdness:

Orioles-Brewers WS.

A WS featuring former division rivals, which once played famous non-playoff 163rd game to decide division title. Game pits original and present Milwaukee Brewers (and each team played in its original city for only one season before hightailing it). The Orioles once played in St. Louis and the Brewers played the other St. Louis team in its only previous WS appearance.

   67. Randy Jones Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4279135)
I was going to second SoSH's suggestion, because an Astros-Cubs World Series in 2013 would have to have been preceded by the absolutely strangest series of events in regular-season and postseason history to bring us to that point.


28 plane crashes?
   68. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4279146)
I was going to second SoSH's suggestion, because an Astros-Cubs World Series in 2013 would have to have been preceded by the absolutely strangest series of events in regular-season and postseason history to bring us to that point.

28 plane crashes?

A postseason where Cubs evolve from men?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRoyals G.M. Dayton Moore believes hitting will come around
(6 - 3:18am, Apr 23)
Last: LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series)

NewsblogCameron: Numbers don't lie: The decline of Pujols is stunning
(208 - 3:13am, Apr 23)
Last: LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series)

NewsblogMike Trout And Bryce Harper Are Baseball’s Best Young Position-Player Duo Ever
(9 - 2:57am, Apr 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(188 - 2:46am, Apr 23)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for APRIL 22, 2014
(90 - 2:20am, Apr 23)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(6 - 1:59am, Apr 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1048 - 1:51am, Apr 23)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(468 - 1:05am, Apr 23)
Last: robinred

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2054 - 12:45am, Apr 23)
Last: Morty Causa

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(106 - 12:37am, Apr 23)
Last: Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(176 - 12:33am, Apr 23)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

NewsblogMartin Maldonado suspended
(33 - 12:11am, Apr 23)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogESPN: W. P. Kinsella: Where It Began: “Shoeless Joe”
(82 - 11:54pm, Apr 22)
Last: Perry

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals: A history of power
(86 - 11:33pm, Apr 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Baseball Equivalent of Hitting on 16 | FanGraphs Baseball
(24 - 10:59pm, Apr 22)
Last: McCoy

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7024 seconds
52 querie(s) executed