Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Mets - Signed Bay

New York Mets - Signed LF Jason Bay to a 4-year, $66 million contract.

This contract comes with an option for a 5th season.

This is a pretty good signing for the Mets, but with a few caveats.  The team and the fans have to remember that while they’re getting a solid player in Bay, he’s not a superstar.  The Mets needed a bat like Bay’s, but he’s not one of the best hitters in the league and his defense leaves much to be desired.  Fenway and LF always seems to be an ongoing issue for defensive statistics, but Bay had a UZR of -12 in his last full year in Pittsburgh, so it’s not a stretch to say he’s a significantly below-average defensive player.

The Mets really have to get what pitching they can at this point.  The problems with the team are such that even adding a needed bat in left doesn’t make the job done.  To use a poker term, the Mets are “pot committed” after this signing.  The team was at a crossroads, with too much talent to rebuild and perhaps not good enough to win the division, so if the team is going for it, they have to absolutely go for it.  They have the weakest starting rotation of any NL team with a realistic expectation of competing in 2010 and signing Bengie Molina and a whole brigade de cuisine of backup catchers isn’t going to fix it.

ZiPS Projection - Jason Bay
———————————————————————————————————————
Year   AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI   BB   SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG   OPS+
———————————————————————————————————————
2010   537   94 145 22   3 36   99   81 154 10 .270 .369 .523   136
2011   471   82 121 22   3 28   90   73 134   6 .257 .362 .495   126
2012   466   79 117 21   2 28   87   71 138   5 .251 .355 .485   122
2013   460   75 111 20   2 25   82   69 142   5 .241 .344 .457   112
———————————————————————————————————————

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM | 52 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:54 AM (#3424399)
Is the Mets rotation really worse than the Brewers?
   2. Dr. House Posted: December 30, 2009 at 04:19 AM (#3424414)
It's a bit better but the Brewers only need to worry about competing with the NL Central, a decidedly easier task than measuring up against PHI for the division (no chance) or LA/COL and ATL for the wildcard.
   3. PreservedFish Posted: December 30, 2009 at 04:23 AM (#3424419)
To use a poker term, the Mets are "pot committed" after this signing. The team was at a crossroads, with too much talent to rebuild and perhaps not good enough to win the division, so if the team is going for it, they have to absolutely go for it.


Don't really agree with this. Not if you are implying that they need to do some drastic #### to make the msot out of 2010.
   4. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: December 30, 2009 at 04:37 AM (#3424424)
I agree with the idea that the Mets need to go for it in 2010 as long as the moves they make don't severely hinder their ability to compete in 2011 and beyond. What does this mean? Try to sign as many good players as you can on one-year deals:

1. Delgado and LaRoche are still out there. Sign one of the two to play 1b and make Murphy a supersub/PH extraordinarie.

2. If Garland can be had on a one year deal, you jump at it. Kick the tires on Sheets/Bedard on incentive laden one year deals. If not, look at Garland/Pineiro and see which one makes the most sense with respect to dollars/contract length.

3. Do not give Benji Molina a three year deal. Look at Snyder. How desperate are the D-backs to get rid of him?

4. Continue to look at relievers. Donelly isn't getting that many phone calls. Can he be had for less than a million bucks?
   5. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: December 30, 2009 at 04:41 AM (#3424428)
i hear that silva is avalible
   6. Sam M. Posted: December 30, 2009 at 05:02 AM (#3424444)
if the team is going for it, they have to absolutely go for it.

Well, they are definitely not in long-term rebuilding mode, but that doesn't mean it's all about just one season, either. The Mets' brain trust could be realistic enough to understand that it is extremely rare to make up 23 games (on a very good team, anyway) in the standings in a single year, no matter how much you do in the off-season. So they should understand that even signing Bay and acquiring a solid first baseman and adding TWO starters is unlikely to get the job done -- in 2010. It might set them up to be a lot closer, and be in position to get the rest of the job done next off-season.

So yes, they are all-in with not going into rebuilding mode and aiming for 2014. But that shouldn't be news, and it doesn't mean they can't use some restraint when it comes to leaving some tasks undone if the right solution doesn't present itself to some of their problems.
   7. Walt Davis Posted: December 30, 2009 at 05:10 AM (#3424449)
Wow, that's a substantial drop in Bay's projection from 2010 to 2011 -- 13 points of BA, 15 points of ISO, 10 points of OPS+ and >10% playing time. Ouch. It happens again 2012-13. What's going on there Dan? Not suggesting it's not right, just wouldn't have expected to see that steep an across-the-board decline for a good hitter in his early 30s ... and I would have expected to see the decline evenly spread or slightly increasing across the years, not be so spiky.
   8. BrianBrianson Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:18 AM (#3424498)
This contract comes with an option for a 5th season.


The fifth season is also cursed.
   9. PreservedFish Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:50 AM (#3424505)
That's bad.
   10. Good cripple hitter Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:57 AM (#3424507)
But it comes with a free Francoeur!
   11. PreservedFish Posted: December 30, 2009 at 08:01 AM (#3424508)
That's good!
   12. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 30, 2009 at 08:38 AM (#3424519)
Does anyone else think that the Bay contract makes it less likely the Mets will ever extend Francoeur? If Bay is in left next few years, and Beltran is in center, where is Fernando? I really believe that Omar would have to be overwhelmed to trade Fernando.

Fernando looked pretty good in center for a guy I think most scouts believed would be a corner outfielder and Beltran is only signed for two seasons. Also, Bay could be moved to first base or traded eventually.

What do you guys think?
   13. Something Other Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:24 AM (#3424539)
The projection looks about right to me. It also looks like the 5th year vests easily so it's more on the order of a 5/82 contract. In other words, very poor. I posted at a little more length in the other Bay thread, but even crediting Bay with a decent 2007 (instead of the replacement level production he actually put up) over the next five years his WAR prjects at something like 3.1, 2.6, 2.0, 1.3, 0.6. There's nothing in his game that suggests Bay will age better than most players, so that's a 9.6 WAR for $82 million. How is this anything other than a contract three-plus times (given the money) as bad as the Castillo signing?

To use a poker term, the Mets are "pot committed" after this signing. The team was at a crossroads, with too much talent to rebuild and perhaps not good enough to win the division, so if the team is going for it, they have to absolutely go for it.
Given how the Mets have misspent--Bay and Molina instead of Lackey and Cameron, for instance--they've put themselves in a position where they need to gamble hugely. If they had grabbed Lackey and Cameron, further solid signings or trades would have made sense: Add Arroyo or Marquis to Lackey and Cameron and you have a respectable chance of adding 10-12 wins total to the team. Now, having added less than 4 wins with the Bay and Molina signings, miracles are in order. Were I the Mets GM and having put myself in this particular hole, I'd have to go after Sheets and someone else of his ilk and take my shot at filling the inside straight.
   14. VegasRobb Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:30 AM (#3424543)
Doesn't Fernando become trade bait for starting pitching?
   15. Something Other Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM (#3424552)
RF still seems to be open after 2010, and CF after 2011...
   16. Morph Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM (#3424553)
Bay will outperform this projection by a pretty sizable amount. This was a great signing by the Mets. An athletic guy who will age well… His poor defense can be attributed entirely to below average instincts… bad jumps; terrible reads… not anything physical that would suggest an imminent deterioration. Bay the hitter will probably justify the contract.

I think defensive metrics, which are very far from perfection, are being extremely overrated right now in calculating the value of players.

I doubt the Mets regret this move.
   17.   Posted: December 30, 2009 at 11:05 AM (#3424554)
   18. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:18 PM (#3424604)
[16] Hey, an optimist. thinkingoutloud may punch you in the face, but I for one am glad you're here.
   19. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:32 PM (#3424615)
I think this is a solid signing for the Mets, but I will make a large wager he does NOT outperform that projection.
   20. dangnewt Posted: December 30, 2009 at 03:37 PM (#3424621)
As a Sox fan, I'll miss Bay and appreciate the way he came in and hit well in the aftermath of the drama with Manny. He is a great mistake hitter with the power to send it out of anywhere. I think he'll do well back in the NL.
   21. Walt Davis Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:12 PM (#3424838)
There is one indicator that Bay may age better than the usual player -- he still steals a handful of bases and at a very good rate. He's 23 for 26 the last 2 years, 59 for 66 over the last 5. Rickey's record is safe but it does suggest he's got more speed than your average lumbering slugging LF. (But ZiPS probably controls for this so I'm not sure it says anything about that projection.)
   22. Mattbert Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:29 PM (#3424853)
Wow, that's a substantial drop in Bay's projection from 2010 to 2011 -- 13 points of BA, 15 points of ISO, 10 points of OPS+ and >10% playing time. Ouch. It happens again 2012-13. What's going on there Dan?

The sudden decline in playing time is the most peculiar bit to me. What happens at age 32 that establishes that new, significantly lower baseline of PAs per season?

I would have expected to see the decline evenly spread or slightly increasing across the years, not be so spiky.

Again, I think Walt makes a good observation here. Bay's been a rather remarkably consistent offensive player over his career, with the exception of the year he was hurt. It seems odd to project him for anything other than a nice, smooth and slight decline as he moves into his early and mid 30s.

In any case, Mets fans will not regret seeing his bat in the lineup behind Beltran and Wright every day. He is limited defensively, but far from a butcher. On the basepaths, he's smart and surprisingly fast once he gets going. He's not quick--which is a big part of his defensive shortcomings--but he's not the type of power hitter who will have trouble going first to third or scoring from second on most base hits. Consummate pro, if a bit dull.

He was certainly an asset during his time in Boston, and I'm sure just about every Sox fan--including this one--wishes him the best with the Mets.
   23. The Republic of Dresses Posted: December 30, 2009 at 07:50 PM (#3424871)
An athletic guy who will age well… His poor defense can be attributed entirely to below average instincts… bad jumps; terrible reads… not anything physical that would suggest an imminent deterioration.

So the defensive collapse immediately following knee surgery was just a coincidence? He also underwent an instinctectomy prior to the 2007 season, and that's the culprit?
   24.   Posted: December 30, 2009 at 08:28 PM (#3424923)
What happens at age 32 that establishes that new, significantly lower baseline of PAs per season?


32/33 seems to be the age of death for non-star corner outfielders.
   25. Kyle S at work Posted: December 30, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3424938)
I'm disappointed that Russlan couldn't have come up with "The Francoeur is also cursed" in 12. What happened to the BBTF we used to know and love? Nary an Admiral Ackbar sighting to be found, either.
   26. steagles Posted: December 30, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3424949)
if i'm not mistaken, bay will make just 10 million in 2010, which means that the difference between his salary from 2011 to 2013 and roy halladay's salary from 2011 to 2013 is 4 million over that period.

that is all.
   27. Nasty Nate Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:02 PM (#3424955)
So the defensive collapse immediately following knee surgery was just a coincidence? He also underwent an instinctectomy prior to the 2007 season, and that's the culprit?


I'm not sure what this means. Do you think a knee injury from years ago suggests imminent deterioration now?
   28. Swedish Chef Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:26 PM (#3424974)
Don't you get Bernie Williams when a player with bad instincts slow down with age?
   29. Darnell McDonald had a farm Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:32 PM (#3424979)
I get that we're not supposed to use these for predictive purposes but it's interesting that so many of Bay's B-Ref comps declined very quickly

Similar Batters through 30
View Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
Ryan Klesko (957)
Geoff Jenkins (953)
Tim Salmon (951)
J.D. Drew (940)
Bobby Higginson (936)
Jim Edmonds (936)
George Foster (934)
Willie Stargell (933) *
Richard Hidalgo (932)
Kevin Mitchell (932)

If he turns into Willie Stargell Mets fans will be happy. His family will be stunned but Mets fans will be happy

As a Sox fan I wish Bay well in his new digs but I'm leaning toward glad they spent that money on Bacne instead
   30. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:44 PM (#3424988)
I don't agree with your read, mopar.

Klesko was a roider (just look at him)
Jenkins was clearly worse than bay
Salmon was very productive 3 of his 5 next years
Drew has remained productive despite his injury record
Higginson was a collapse
Edmonds remained very productive
Foster's a weird comp, I think, but alternated good and awful years after 30
Stargell was Stargell
Hidalgo was rarely any good in his career
Mitchell already had an injury history, and continued to be injured but hit while he was healthy
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: December 30, 2009 at 09:53 PM (#3424997)
that's not mopar's read, that's Bay's B-Ref comps
   32. JPWF13 Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:01 PM (#3425004)
that's not mopar's read, that's Bay's B-Ref comps


no mopar's "read" is:

but it's interesting that so many of Bay's B-Ref comps declined very quickly
   33. Nasty Nate Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM (#3425011)
ahh, my apologies freeball
   34. JPWF13 Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:13 PM (#3425024)
There are 2 big problems with Bay's (and most everyone els's) BBREF comps:

1: There should be a rate stat quality control- someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 60s/70s is a hell of a lot better hitter than someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 90s/00s

2: Bay's career stats through age 30 may look a lot like someone else's through age 30, but Bay and that player may be so dramatically different from ages 28-30 - that it is pretty obviously that guy is not going to be a good age 31 comp.

Hidalgo brings out these issues most clearly:
Bay: .280-185-610,
Hidalgo: .269-171-560
BUT Bay has a21 point OPS+ lead

and Bay hit .286/.373/.522 at age 29, and .267/.384/.537 at age 30
Hidalgo hit .239/.301/.444 at 29 and .221/.289/.416 at 30...

Bay is pretty clearly:
1: Better than Hidalgo (vastly so ages 29-30)
2: Not on the Hidalgo career path.

Klesko is a very good statistical comp, and he did hit .274/.375/.469 (OPS+ 129- Petco) in 2099 age 31-34 PAs...
Salmon also looks like a good comp
   35. smileyy Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:34 PM (#3425048)
Henceforth, I'm referring to Francouer as "Frogurt". "Frenchy Frogurt" when I'm feeling extra-sassy.

Coke to 28, because I was expecting to see that in a 1-liner.
   36. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 30, 2009 at 10:56 PM (#3425065)
I would have liked to see the ZiPS comps for Bay, because he strikes me as the type of player who *is* a good candidate for a rapid decline.

-- MWE
   37. JPWF13 Posted: December 30, 2009 at 11:05 PM (#3425072)
From the Redsox projection page:

AllisonBob KinerRalph BondsBobby


and as a Mets fan, FU MWE for post 36.

:-)
   38. steagles Posted: December 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM (#3425076)


and as a Mets fan, FU MWE for post 36.

:-)
that doesn't mean anything. people were saying the same thing about pat burrell and look what he did last season.
   39. bobm Posted: December 31, 2009 at 12:13 AM (#3425101)

ZiPS Projection - Jason Bay
------------------------
Year  AB;... BB ... OPS+
------------------------
2010 537 ... 81 ... 136 (624 AB+BB)
2011 471 ... 73 ... 126 (544 AB+BB)
2012 466 ... 71 ... 122 (537 AB+BB)
2013 460 ... 69 ... 112 (529 AB+BB)
------------------------


This is a more reasonable projection than at first glance IMO.

In another thread, I looked at Jason Bay's age 25-30 seasons (131 OPS+ in 3,790 PA) and found six LF comps with similar OPS+. Three (Floyd, Rudi, and Gant) had about 3,100 PA. Three others (Watson, White, Klesko) had 3,584, 3,833 and 3,308 PA respectively. From this I concluded that Bay is not likely to suffer a Floyd-esque collapse. The age 31-35 seasons of the lower PA group were noticely worse (90-109 OPS+ in 1654-2,592 PA) than the higher PA group (129,114,130 OPS+ in 2,384, 2601, and 2,105 PA)

When I look on a year-by-year basis at the three comps with similar durability to Bay, the PAs drop off similarly; the OPS pattern varied. It's the age 35 season where the risk comes in; hopefully 30 years improvement in training, medicine, nutrition, etc., keeps Bay on the field.

Bob Watson

Year Age PA OPS+
1977 31 623 138
1978 32 527 133
1979 33 529 124
<u>1980 34 525 127</u>
1981 35 180 104

Roy White

Year Age PA OPS+
1975 31 636 128
1976 32 728 127
1977 33 606 109
<u>1978 34 395 112</u>
1979 35 236 59

Ryan Klesko
Year Age PA OPS+
2002 31 625 152
2003 32 474 118
2004 33 480 129
<u>2005 34 520 110</u>
2006 35 6 388
   40. Something Other Posted: December 31, 2009 at 04:38 AM (#3425196)
[16] Hey, an optimist. thinkingoutloud may punch you in the face, but I for one am glad you're here.
Sheesh. And that's after I went and credited Bay for having had a real season in 2007? Tough crowd. I may have to go back to being cranky.

I would have liked to see the ZiPS comps for Bay, because he strikes me as the type of player who *is* a good candidate for a rapid decline.

-- MWE
The history of baseball is inextricably tied up with the history of bodies in decline. There's nothing pessimistic about this, it's simply the way things are. The history of baseball is full of speedy guys who could steal bases with good percentages at 30, and were done as full-time ballplayers three years later. It's full of power hitters, good power hitters, whose ability vanished between the ages of 30 and 35. That's the norm. As for defense, Bay's on the wrong end of the defensive spectrum. There's only one place he can move, but there's no reason to believe he'll be a better 1bman than he is a LFer, and in any case he'd have to be around 5 runs better at 1b than he is in LF in order not to lose ground.

When I look on a year-by-year basis at the three comps with similar durability to Bay,...
One drawback for Bay and the Mets is that your durable guys would all qualify for the rumored vesting option. Even without it 2 of your 3 guys wouldn't be worth the deal, and the third isn't really, either, it's just not too obviously painful. Throw in the fifth year and it's all-around gruesome.
   41. Walt Davis Posted: December 31, 2009 at 04:40 AM (#3425198)
Let me be clear. I'm not so much surprised that Bay is projected to lose 24 points of OPS+ over 4 years (I wouldn't have guessed it would be that bad but it's not shocking) nor am I surprised that, by age 34, his playing time might have decreased by 10-15%.

I'm surprised that the playing time decline is _projected_ to occur at age 32 and that big OPS+ declines are _projected_ for ages 32 and 34 but not 33. That is a pretty odd thing for a model to spit out -- even if it's one with quadratic or interaction terms of age by whatever. It would be more common if age is being treated categorically (i.e. dummy variables) which may or may not be appropriate.

That is if the effect of age was linear, we'd see roughly equal drops; if it was quadratic, and assuming we've passed the point (for players like Bay) where the squared term takes over, we'd see the decline increasing in magnitude. But, over a short period of time, seeing steady, big drop, steady, big drop is unusual for a model.

Anyway, I'm just curious, not saying it's wrong.

There are 2 big problems with Bay's (and most everyone els's) BBREF comps:

1: There should be a rate stat quality control- someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 60s/70s is a hell of a lot better hitter than someone who hit .275/.350/.475 in the 90s/00s


The first only sometimes holds. It's certainly true that b-r comps can be awful due to not controlling for era differences, but not always. Bay's comps are generally fine, the only one that's "bad" is Hidalgo and that's got nothing to do with era differences. Bay's OPS+ through age 30 is 131, the average of his comps is 125 (and it will be about 127-8 if you dropped Hidalgo). Other than Hidalgo, the lowest is Jenkins at 119 and the hightest is Mitchell at 140 -- nothing wrong with that sort of range. 7 of the 10 comps are from 1992 or later, roughly the same era. The three that aren't are the three with the highest OPS+ but they're 136, 139 and 140 so hardly absurd.

Moreover, everyone except for Edmonds was a corner OF. Four of the 10 even have reasonably similar SB/CS numbers. I love that Willie Stargell leads this group in triples at 38.

So generally they match pretty well on raw stats, match pretty well on adjusted stats, play the same position, tend to match on era and some even have similar baserunning numbers. Toss out Hidalgo and I don't know what else you'd want from a set of career offensive comps.

Now ... your point about age 28-30 or 27-30 production is quite valid. This could be easily solved if P-I could add the ability to look at a table of players from age X onwards. (i.e. we could do it by hand easily)

But all of this is just a fun distraction of course -- comps give us very little information. The last few years of performance and a simple aging curve probably get you 90% of the way there (well 90% of the way we've gone so far). Body type and such probably add another few percent. Comps just tweak things a little.
   42. Mattbert Posted: December 31, 2009 at 12:26 PM (#3425298)
32/33 seems to be the age of death for non-star corner outfielders.

The term "non-star" doesn't really mean much to me. Although it does seem to be awfully exclusive. Bay's OPS in 2009 was second among all corner outfielders in MLB. I accept that's a fairly coarse measure of stardom, but if nothing else, the guy can bloody well hit a baseball.

Second, it's not like ZiPS is projecting him to fall off a cliff after 2010. His rates remain more or less intact, with the exception of a slight loss of power. ZiPS projects a 126 OPS+ for 2011 and 122 for 2012, hardly doom and gloom. It's the rather large, sudden, and sustained drop in playing time between 2010 and the remaining years that's peculiar. It's as if ZiPS is projecting a weirdly specific and chronic injury sometime in 2011 that will thereafter limit Bay to something like 80-100 fewer PAs per year than his very consistent norm. If he's still hitting as well as ZiPS thinks he will be in 2011-2012, why else would he be losing playing time, right?
   43. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: May 20, 2010 at 01:47 AM (#3537499)
The under on this projection is looking mighty good.
   44. thetailor Posted: August 04, 2010 at 03:18 AM (#3607758)
The under on this projection is still looking good.

I cannot believe that the Mets BTF community was so optimistic about this signing. I wasn't.

http://fonzieforever.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-is-jason-bay-most-like.html
   45. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 04, 2010 at 03:50 AM (#3607768)
I'm outraged by this projection, and surprised by it as well.

Here's an obvious bit of spam to my blog.

http://dumbassmetsblog.probablysponsoredbydickembiggeners.com
   46. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: August 04, 2010 at 04:49 AM (#3607783)
I don't think Voxter's response is defensible, but in his defense, it looks like he's about as frustrated with the Red Sox as I am right now (which is to say, ready to chew glass).
   47. thetailor Posted: August 04, 2010 at 05:55 PM (#3608160)
I am sorry if that comes off as spam-ish. Usually when I bother enough to log into post to BTF on a topic I've already written about, I will just condense/summarize/paraphrase the blog entry so as to not appear obnoxious. In this case though, there was a lot of mundane stuff that wouldn't have fitted appropriately in the comment thread. And for what it's worth, you won't notice any ad or sponsorship on the blog ... that's not why I write it.

Now, back to the Mets! Jason Bay sucks, eh? And the contract is back-loaded....
   48. JJ1986 Posted: August 04, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3608166)
I was very against Bay, but mostly because I wanted to throw the money at John Lackey. That would have worked out just as well.
   49. NBarnes Posted: August 06, 2010 at 08:36 PM (#3610034)
I remain baffled by the Lackey signing. It's good to know that at least some bullets were dodged.
   50. John DiFool2 Posted: August 06, 2010 at 08:47 PM (#3610043)
Bay is still stuck on 6 HRs? And even weirder he also has 6 triples-I wonder what the odds on his HR = 3B would have been before the season...
   51. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 06, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3610060)
Yeah, I owe you an apology, tailor. It was an overreaction based on a bad assumption.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6036 seconds
47 querie(s) executed