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, April 18, 2018

Update: Cubs’ Anthony Rizzo calls his shorter-season, pay-cut comments ‘my opinion’

No thank you.

Jim Furtado Posted: April 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM | 128 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: anthony rizzo, cubs

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:16 PM (#5656801)
But the generation before mine had 8 years olds on the subway, I'm sure.
And 11-year-olds driving the subway.
   102. Greg Pope Posted: April 19, 2018 at 08:53 PM (#5656816)
My aunt tells me that in the early 60s she would just park the stroller outside the grocery store in Brooklyn, totally unattended on the street. Her kids were fine. But the kids that got stolen aren't here to tell us their cautionary tale.

The last part is what seems to get lost. How many of us have heard, "When I was a kid we didn't wear seat belts and we survived"? Um, yeah, the ones who didn't wear seat belts and didn't survive aren't here to tell you about it.
   103. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:01 PM (#5656820)
CFB's passion on that issue makes me think he is actually Tony LaRussa.


My passion is simple common sense.. This bullshit argument about it being "just extending the existing rules" is simply distraction... A guy who comes in to pitch, should have to pitch to one batter.... but making a team keep a guy in who is clearly incapable of performing, is a crime against humanity and fans of the team.


Forcing the guy to pitch to one guy is just practical. If a guy comes in and proves he doesn't have it tonight, why the #### should he be forced to pitch to two more batters???? That is SO INSANE.... I seriously cannot believe that it is something that is put forth on a board that is about the thinking fan.... it's one of those stupid things that you would expect to see on a board where people think Batting average and rbi are stats that indicate quality of a player.


A guy comes in, and gets lucky to record an out after he threw 3 balls, and on the fourth, which would have been a walk, the idiot batter swung at it and made a weak out.... Everyone in the stadium who knows anything about baseball(apparently not the idiots who want to demand 3 batters per pitcher though) knows that this guy has nothing, but now we have a rule forcing him to pitch to three batters when he ####### has nothing???? seriously this is what you idiots think would be good baseball? A pitcher with nothing in a close game, is being forced to face three batters because of some stupid rule created by morons in their basement.
   104. PreservedFish Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:15 PM (#5656827)
I'm not a fan of the "face 2+ hitters" rule, but cfb's arguments don't work for me at all. It's not possible to say that a pitcher doesn't "have it" after one batter. And for every pitcher that is removed because he doesn't "have it" after one batter, there are probably 100 that are removed for matchups or other stupid reasons. We deal with watching starters that don't "have it" after one batter all the time, and somehow the game survives. I just watched a starter give up a 3 run bomb in the first inning, then settle down and pitch shutdown baseball. Have you ever seen that, cfb?

it's one of those stupid things that you would expect to see on a board where people think Batting average and rbi are stats that indicate quality of a player

Actually, I think it's the idea that you can judge how hot or cold a reliever is after a handful of pitches that would fit comfortably on such a board.

But if it were so manifest when pitchers do and don't have it, then I'd suggest giving more power to the bullpen coach, who should be able to judge his relievers' temporary quality just by watching their warmups. It would be easy for him to call the manager and say, "Rodriguez doesn't have it tonight."
   105. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:23 PM (#5656836)
let unaccompanied kids 12 and under into the bleachers for free on selected Saturday afternoon games

You'd need a specially designated parking lot nearby for Middle-Aged Guys in Windowless White Vans, otherwise they'd block traffic, and that would be a problem.


I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but it's still a funny thought.

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

This discussion always interests me, as a parent. Parents are SO MUCH more careful with their kids these days. And every statistic says that kids are safer than ever. But is that just because of all the helicopter parenting? If the kids were all let loose tomorrow, would the world appear to remain as safe? And how important is survivorship bias here? My aunt tells me that in the early 60s she would just park the stroller outside the grocery store in Brooklyn, totally unattended on the street. Her kids were fine. But the kids that got stolen aren't here to tell us their cautionary tale.

I rode the NYC subway by myself when I was 11. I get the impression that now, just a generation later, that would be seen as reckless behavior. But the generation before mine had 8 years olds on the subway, I'm sure.


I can only relate my own experience in what was obviously a different world. I was born on W110th St. in Manhattan, directly across from Morningside Park, at a time when it was a block of mostly white first and second generation immigrants from all over Europe, one block north of a 109th St. that was all Puerto Rican. We'd sometimes stage what could only be termed mock-rumbles on the east side of Columbus Avenue, throwing rocks at each other from distances too far for the rocks ever to reach their target. This was when I was 5 or 6, and the oldest kids involved were at most 8.

But nobody got hurt, our parents were either working or at home, and the other pedestrians on Columbus shouted for us to stop, but I don't remember the police ever getting involved, probably because the whole affair never lasted more than a few minutes. It was kind of a rite of passage, but it was much less fraught with danger than it may seem on paper.

I was too young then to be allowed to ride the subway by myself, but when we moved to DC, by the time I was 8 I was taking the bus and trolley by myself, and by 10 I was going by myself to night games at Griffith Stadium. Back then 7th & Florida wasn't the most crime-free of neighborhoods, but since the trolley stop was right outside the stadium and there were policemen nearby monitoring the exiting crowds, it was perfectly safe. All this was uttlerly normal.

And while I can see why parents who live in the distant suburbs today wouldn't want their 5th or 6th graders to be sojourning down to South Capitol St. for games that might end after the MetroRail stops running, I can't see what the problem would be for inner city kids who live near the MetroRail going to day games by themselves. It's one of those minor adventures that can help prepare a kid for bigger and better journeys out into the world a few years down the road. Just my two cents.

   106. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:26 PM (#5656841)
I'm not a fan of the "face 2+ hitters" rule, but cfb's arguments don't work for me at all. It's not possible to say that a pitcher doesn't "have it" after one batter. And for every pitcher that is removed because he doesn't "have it" after one batter, there are probably 100 that are removed for matchups or other stupid reasons.


In 2015, the season with the greatest number of one batter performances in history, was 1398 appearances, that is 46.6 times per team... these people complaining about the one batter faced pitcher, are talking about a situation that happens 1 out of every 4 games per team. (or effectively one out of every two games that they watch---one time it happens)

Expanding it to 2 batters faced, you are looking at 2015 again, and a total of 2588 appearances or 86.2 times per team, roughly once every two games per team do they have a situation in which a reliever doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold of three batters faced... This is not a problem, this is people imagining a problem and making it a bigger deal than it actually is.
   107. cardsfanboy Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5656843)
I do find it weird that some people think that it's not possible to not determine whether someone has it based upon 3-6 pitches for one batter.. Even casual fans can sometimes make that call. And to think that you need a larger sample size before you can make that call, screams "I'm in my basement" type of thinking. Everyone in St Louis, even Mike Matheny, knew that Holland didn't have it after his first batter the other night, but Matheny hesitated because of the argument of 'sample size' that has been driven into his head, but there was no reason for Holland to face as many people as he did.
   108. PreservedFish Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5656844)
Cfb ... I agree with the arguments in #106.

The arguments in #103 are terrible though, in many ways.
   109. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5656847)
My aunt tells me that in the early 60s she would just park the stroller outside the grocery store in Brooklyn, totally unattended on the street. Her kids were fine. But the kids that got stolen aren't here to tell us their cautionary tale.

We never had any kids get "lost" when I was growing up, but we did have a Walter Johnson League (DC's then-version of Little League) umpire who turned out to be a child molester. It never made the papers, but all the kids knew about it, even though we weren't really sure exactly what he'd done, and he was just quietly kept away from the playground after that. A few years later the story would've dominated the 11 o'clock news for the better part of a week, and today it'd be all over the front page of the Post's website and scaring parents half to death. I'm sure all this saturation publicity is one of the reasons why so many parents today are so paranoid.
   110. PreservedFish Posted: April 19, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5656853)
I do find it weird that some people think that it's not possible to not determine whether someone has it based upon 3-6 pitches for one batter.. Even casual fans can sometimes make that call.


It's beside the point. Nobody cares. With this rule, if you put in a crappy pitcher, you're stuck with him. That's a feature, not a bug. If you put in a guy that's 7mph below his usual fastball, or has clownishly bad control, that's your damn fault and you pay the price. I truly don't understand how this would be bad for baseball. I don't think this is a situation that happens often enough for anyone to care about - despite your claim, decades of searching for statistical evidence of "hot hands" and the like has turned up nothing - and if we had all grown up with this rule, we'd all be ok with it.

We're all familiar with situations where a gassed pitcher is asked to keep performing - such as in long extra innings games - and it can actually be quite compelling to see a guy try and work through a spate of ineffectiveness. But it doesn't need to be compelling, it just needs to be more fun to watch than yet another 3 minute break to allow yet another generic faceless huge ######## take the mound with his 98 mph fastball.
   111. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2018 at 08:54 AM (#5656962)
I do find it weird that some people think that it's not possible to not determine whether someone has it based upon 3-6 pitches for one batter.. Even casual fans can sometimes make that call.

This may be true of casual fans, but I feel like managers pretty much never put in a pitcher they intend to use for the whole inning, then change their mind after one batter after seeing he's got nothing.

Sure, fans will scream "he's got nothing, getting him out!" But managers tend to stick with their plan.
   112. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:22 AM (#5656974)
The last part is what seems to get lost. How many of us have heard, "When I was a kid we didn't wear seat belts and we survived"? Um, yeah, the ones who didn't wear seat belts and didn't survive aren't here to tell you about it.

You're still talking about a tiny, tiny risk. The issue now is that so many parents have only one child, and most have no more than two.
This has made them massively risk averse.

Also, the vast decline in general childhood mortality over the last century has made a child's death unthinkable, rather than a normal occurence that most parents could expect to experience.

Every one of my grandparents lost at least one sibling in childhood. My paternal grandmother lost 3 of 6 siblings.

We forget, but if you got married in 1900 and started a family, the odds very extremely high you would bury at least one child.
   113. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5656986)
The last part is what seems to get lost. How many of us have heard, "When I was a kid we didn't wear seat belts and we survived"? Um, yeah, the ones who didn't wear seat belts and didn't survive aren't here to tell you about it.

You're still talking about a tiny, tiny risk. The issue now is that so many parents have only one child, and most have no more than two.
This has made them massively risk averse.

Also, the vast decline in general childhood mortality over the last century has made a child's death unthinkable, rather than a normal occurence that most parents could expect to experience.

Every one of my grandparents lost at least one sibling in childhood. My paternal grandmother lost 3 of 6 siblings.

We forget, but if you got married in 1900 and started a family, the odds very extremely high you would bury at least one child.


snapper, by the time the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955, the childhood survival rates in the United States were closer to 2018 than 1900, and that vaccine alone eliminated the greatest source of public fear surrounding children's health. No middle class family in the Baby Boom era would have had any less grief about the loss of a child than a middle class family would today.
   114. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5656989)
snapper, by the time the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955, the childhood survival rates in the United States were closer to 2018 than 1900, and that vaccine alone eliminated the greatest source of public fear surrounding children's health. No middle class family in the Baby Boom era would have had any less grief about the loss of a child than a middle class family would today.

The fear of death of an only child that you had at age 42 after spending $50,000 on IVF, who is also the only grandchild, is different in kind from the death of one of your four children, who is one of 12 grandchildren.

When people put all their eggs in one basket, they watch that basket very, very closely.

It's the same logic that has upper class people paying $30K for pre-school to make sure little snowflake gets into Harvard. Children are now something that many people plan in detail, and invest heavily in, and live through, to a far greater extent than when people just got married at 22, and had a bunch of kids as a matter of course.
   115. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:47 AM (#5657013)

This discussion always interests me, as a parent. Parents are SO MUCH more careful with their kids these days. And every statistic says that kids are safer than ever. But is that just because of all the helicopter parenting?
No, because all crime is down, not just crime involving children.

But the kids that got stolen aren't here to tell us their cautionary tale.
Sure they are. Except the ones who were killed, and we kind of track that. There are complications with tracking some crimes over time, but child kidnapping is a relatively easy one.
   116. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5657019)
Everyone in the stadium who knows anything about baseball(apparently not the idiots who want to demand 3 batters per pitcher though) knows that this guy has nothing,
Everyone who knows anything about baseball has seen thousands of instances in which a pitcher pitched terribly to the first batter (or two or three or four, if it's a starter) and then settled down and pitched well. You are just full of crap when you pretend we know after one batter whether the pitcher has something. You don't. At best, you're fooling yourself.


In 2015, the season with the greatest number of one batter performances in history, was 1398 appearances, that is 46.6 times per team... these people complaining about the one batter faced pitcher, are talking about a situation that happens 1 out of every 4 games per team. (or effectively one out of every two games that they watch---one time it happens)

Expanding it to 2 batters faced, you are looking at 2015 again, and a total of 2588 appearances or 86.2 times per team, roughly once every two games per team do they have a situation in which a reliever doesn't meet the arbitrary threshold of three batters faced... This is not a problem, this is people imagining a problem and making it a bigger deal than it actually is.
It's not clear to me whether this is a cumulative number or a separate data point (i.e., is it 1398 one-batter appearances and 2588 two-batter appearances, or is it 2588 one-or-two-batter appearances?), but either way, telling me that something I don't like "only" happens every other game¹ I watch is not exactly a convincing argument that it isn't something to complain about.


¹Except there are two teams in a game, so it happens on average every game.
   117. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5657020)
I do find it weird that some people think that it's not possible to not determine whether someone has it based upon 3-6 pitches for one batter.. Even casual fans can sometimes make that call. And to think that you need a larger sample size before you can make that call, screams "I'm in my basement" type of thinking. Everyone in St Louis, even Mike Matheny, knew that Holland didn't have it after his first batter the other night, but Matheny hesitated because of the argument of 'sample size' that has been driven into his head, but there was no reason for Holland to face as many people as he did.
Heh. Which is more likely:

A) that it's so obvious when a pitcher doesn't have it that everyone who understands baseball can see that immediately, but Mike Matheny -- who as far as I know has a bit more baseball experience than CFB -- didn't realize it?
B) that it's so obvious when a pitcher doesn't have it that everyone who understands baseball can see that immediately, but Mike Matheny -- who as far as I know has a bit more baseball experience than CFB -- realized it, but decided to ignore it?
C) that it's not actually so obvious at all?
   118. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 20, 2018 at 11:11 AM (#5657026)
snapper, by the time the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955, the childhood survival rates in the United States were closer to 2018 than 1900, and that vaccine alone eliminated the greatest source of public fear surrounding children's health. No middle class family in the Baby Boom era would have had any less grief about the loss of a child than a middle class family would today.

The fear of death of an only child that you had at age 42 after spending $50,000 on IVF, who is also the only grandchild, is different in kind from the death of one of your four children, who is one of 12 grandchildren.


Of course you're cherry picking the two most extreme and opposite examples of the parenting experience with that comparison, not to mention you're minimizing the grief involved in the loss of a child by reducing it to a quasi-mathematical formula. If parents of the mid-1950's had been bombarded by nonstop media and social media coverage of every last incident that took place within their middle class neighborhoods, they'd have been just as prone to helicopter parenting as many (though thankfully not all) parents are today.

   119. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 20, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5657038)
This may be true of casual fans, but I feel like managers pretty much never put in a pitcher they intend to use for the whole inning, then change their mind after one batter after seeing he's got nothing.


Pitchers get pulled after facing one hitter for matchup reasons. They almost literally never get pulled after facing one hitter because "they've got nothing," except in a Rick Ankiel-type situation. You never even hear the announcers say "He's got nothing" until they've faced at least two or three batters.

I don't know how to check this, but I would guess that the vast majority of pitchers who face only one hitter in a game retire that hitter.
   120. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 20, 2018 at 11:31 AM (#5657046)
My passion is simple common sense.. This bullshit argument about it being "just extending the existing rules" is simply distraction... A guy who comes in to pitch, should have to pitch to one batter.... but making a team keep a guy in who is clearly incapable of performing, is a crime against humanity and fans of the team.


Forcing the guy to pitch to one guy is just practical. If a guy comes in and proves he doesn't have it tonight, why the #### should he be forced to pitch to two more batters???? That is SO INSANE.... I seriously cannot believe that it is something that is put forth on a board that is about the thinking fan.... it's one of those stupid things that you would expect to see on a board where people think Batting average and rbi are stats that indicate quality of a player.


A guy comes in, and gets lucky to record an out after he threw 3 balls, and on the fourth, which would have been a walk, the idiot batter swung at it and made a weak out.... Everyone in the stadium who knows anything about baseball(apparently not the idiots who want to demand 3 batters per pitcher though) knows that this guy has nothing, but now we have a rule forcing him to pitch to three batters when he ####### has nothing???? seriously this is what you idiots think would be good baseball? A pitcher with nothing in a close game, is being forced to face three batters because of some stupid rule created by morons in their basement.

Calm down, Tony. You're retired now.
   121. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5657069)
If parents of the mid-1950's had been bombarded by nonstop media and social media coverage of every last incident that took place within their middle class neighborhoods, they'd have been just as prone to helicopter parenting as many (though thankfully not all) parents are today.

Most of them didn't have time. Another factor with more kids, you can't watch them all, The mother who had a baby at home, and a 4 y.o. in the house, and had to do all the shopping, cleaning, ironing, etc. couldn't drive their 10 y.o. to the baseball field, and hang out on the sidelines watching. She probably also didn't have a car.

Helicopter parenting is a phenomena of the leisured upper classes. The day one of my old bosses left work early b/c the housekeeper didn't show up for work and there was no one to drive his kids to Tae Kwan Do, I knew upper class parenting was FUBAR.
   122. BDC Posted: April 20, 2018 at 12:18 PM (#5657088)
I would guess that the vast majority of pitchers who face only one hitter in a game retire that hitter

The B-Ref PI search for this is a little clumsy (or more likely I am), but: in 2017 there were apparently 1,119 pitching appearances of just one batter faced. 221 of them resulted in baserunners, an OBP of .197. So, yes, exactly.
   123. Omineca Greg Posted: April 20, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5657132)
the shorter the season the clearer the reason
why players should be drawing less pay
from snowy cold aprils, to the bare birches and maples
under november's grey skies they now play

they were once boys of summer and for fans it's a bummer
the way games are scheduled these days
in search of more greenbacks the league has been too lax
in allowing the playoffs' new modern phase

despite our exhaustion they've struck a deal almost Faustian
so here we sit, yielding the Devil his due
if the season ain't rolled back, we might take on the bold tack
of refusing to attend, listen, tune-in, or view

but that threat is so hollow as we all love to follow
the players, the games, and the teams
so our discussion here, will give Manfred no fear
and our perfect plans will stay pleasant dreams

so let's quit navel gazing and be done with appraising
the weighing of both pros and cons
there's both queens and kings, but in the big scheme of things
the fanatics will always be pawns
the fanatics will always be pawns
from the dawn's early light 'til the depths of the night
the fans will always be pawns
   124. PreservedFish Posted: April 20, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5657149)
Helicopter parenting is a phenomena of the leisured upper classes. The day one of my old bosses left work early b/c the housekeeper didn't show up for work and there was no one to drive his kids to Tae Kwan Do, I knew upper class parenting was FUBAR.


Not really an example of helicopter parenting IMO. While I think that kids should be able to take care of themselves at home, to move freely in the neighborhood, and to deal with a boring afternoon, a parent occasionally prioritizing the kids over the job isn't really a problem, not if he/she can get away with it.

Helicopter parenting would be, for example, micromanaging their kids in that class - bossing the martial arts master around about what is and isn't fair for little Timmy to do.
   125. Greg K Posted: April 20, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5657153)
Most of them didn't have time. Another factor with more kids, you can't watch them all, The mother who had a baby at home, and a 4 y.o. in the house, and had to do all the shopping, cleaning, ironing, etc. couldn't drive their 10 y.o. to the baseball field, and hang out on the sidelines watching. She probably also didn't have a car.

Helicopter parenting is a phenomena of the leisured upper classes. The day one of my old bosses left work early b/c the housekeeper didn't show up for work and there was no one to drive his kids to Tae Kwan Do, I knew upper class parenting was FUBAR.

A counter to this is the larger number of moms who work these days. I probably spent far more time in physical proximity to my mom while growing up than the average kid does today.
   126. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 20, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5657166)
I probably spent far more time in physical proximity to my mom while growing up than the average kid does today.
Greg, if you weren't such a nice guy I would absolutely make a "your mom" joke out of this.
   127. Omineca Greg Posted: April 20, 2018 at 03:48 PM (#5657186)
Greg K's mom is a really nice lady who took good care of him when he was a child.

Zing!
   128. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 20, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5657193)
Greg K's mom is a really nice lady who took good care of him when he was a child.
This is what they say at Canadian roasts. Except usually it's "Gord."
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Stormy JE
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(64 - 1:29am, Nov 21)
Last: jobu

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(26 - 1:20am, Nov 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2672 - 12:59am, Nov 21)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(317 - 12:44am, Nov 21)
Last: kubiwan

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1238 - 11:48pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(526 - 11:17pm, Nov 20)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogDeadline to set 40-man rosters tonight (11-20)
(4 - 10:47pm, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(12 - 10:43pm, Nov 20)
Last: Mike Webber

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2018 Discussion
(9 - 9:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: Master of the Horse

NewsblogThe View is Always Better When You're the Lead Dog
(8 - 8:23pm, Nov 20)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(94 - 8:07pm, Nov 20)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(39 - 8:02pm, Nov 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(22 - 7:29pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(8 - 7:17pm, Nov 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(196 - 6:44pm, Nov 20)
Last: bachslunch

Page rendered in 0.3945 seconds
46 querie(s) executed