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, September 30, 2019

Average time of 9-inning MLB game a record 3:05:35

NEW YORK (AP) — The average time of a nine-inning game reached a record length in the major leagues this season.

Major League Baseball said Sunday the final figure for this season was 3 hours, 5 minutes, 35 seconds. That topped the 3:05:11 in 2017.

Let the debate about if this need to be solved and, if so, how begin!

 

QLE Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:09 AM | 43 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: length of games, pace of play

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. catomi01 Posted: September 30, 2019 at 10:21 AM (#5884571)
But they got rid of throwing pitches during an intentional walk...wasn't that supposed to solve everything?
   2. PreservedFish Posted: September 30, 2019 at 10:32 AM (#5884577)
Eliminate homerun trots. That should save like 20 minutes per game.
   3. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 30, 2019 at 10:37 AM (#5884584)
Strictly enforce the time limit between pitches.

Put a 45 second limit on replays. If the call on the field can't be clearly overturned within 45 seconds, let the call on the field stand.

Those two reforms alone could cut half an hour from the average game time. Need proof?
   4. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: September 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM (#5884592)
Offense was up (4.83 r/g versus 4.45 r/g in 2018) because of the HRs (duh). Which led to slightly more PAs/game (38.39 versus 38.08). The K rate continued to march upward as well (22.96% versus 22.26%). It's going to be very hard to shorten game time when there are more PAs and a higher percentage of TTO PAs, though walks were slightly down this year.

But they got rid of throwing pitches during an intentional walk...wasn't that supposed to solve everything?

IBBs were down 19% this year. The system works!
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 11:08 AM (#5884596)
It's going to be very hard to shorten game time when there are more PAs and a higher percentage of TTO PAs, though walks were slightly down this year.

Not if you enforce the 12 second limit between pitches with no one on; that's a rule already on the books.
   6. Zonk Has Two Faces, Both Laughing Posted: September 30, 2019 at 11:13 AM (#5884599)
This is number is artificially inflated, though, by the last two weeks of Cubs games that seemed like interminable hell.

In some dimensions, the Cardinals/Cubs showdown opener at Wrigley is still going...
   7. PreservedFish Posted: September 30, 2019 at 11:24 AM (#5884602)
IBBs were down 19% this year. The system works!


No doubt there is a subconscious shame involved with calling for the automatic IBB that has dampened its popularity.
   8. Davo Posted: September 30, 2019 at 11:32 AM (#5884606)
The Houston Astros didn’t intentionally walk ANYONE!
   9. winnipegwhip Posted: September 30, 2019 at 11:50 AM (#5884611)
Eliminate walk up music
   10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:08 PM (#5884635)
Runs Per Game
2019: 9.66
1939: 9.65

Average Time of Game
2019: 3:10
1939: 2:06
   11. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:23 PM (#5884639)
People who ‘waste’ a considerable part of their day hanging around various baseball websites wish us to believe that their time is so valuable that games averaging 24 seconds more this year is an issue? That’s a tough sell.
   12. Davo Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:36 PM (#5884641)
Everything is fine, you’re overreacting, all is for the best in this best of all possible baseballs.
   13. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:38 PM (#5884642)
People who ‘waste’ a considerable part of their day hanging around various baseball websites wish us to believe that their time is so valuable that games averaging 24 seconds more this year is an issue? That’s a tough sell.

Obviously it's not the relatively small year-to-year change that's the problem. It's the steady drip-drip of one small increase after another that winds up being a big increase as the years go by. The difference between 2019's game times and 1984's is 31 minutes, not 34 seconds.
   14. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 01:58 PM (#5884650)
Runs Per Game
2019: 9.66
1939: 9.65

Average Time of Game
2019: 3:10
1939: 2:06


what's the composition(of this 64 minutes)? I'm sure this has been done. 2019: 2:05-2:20 breaks per half inning, any idea what the breaks were in 1939? I'd guess 90 seconds. Pitcher usage: 2019: just over 4 per game, 1939: 1.5 to 2.0? Balls in play decreasing while increase in foul balls (ie more total pitches). Pace between pitches (I recall it was about 20 seconds in early 2000s, now it is over 24 seconds).

I concede a decent chunk of that 64 minutes can't be cut back, not without telling advertisers/broadcast partners to #### off. There's gotta be twenty to twenty five minutes of waste in the one thing that is most within MLBs control, time between pitches. Again, its not the length of the game, it is the pace of it. I too wish there were more balls put into play, but the Jeter/Garciaparra style mugging around and slow working guys (too many to name) are the culprit
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:02 PM (#5884652)
what's the composition(of this 64 minutes)? I'm sure this has been done. 2019: 2:05-2:20 breaks per half inning, any idea what the breaks were in 1939? I'd guess 90 seconds. Pitcher usage: 2019: just over 4 per game, 1939: 1.5 to 2.0? Balls in play decreasing while increase in foul balls (ie more total pitches). Pace between pitches (I recall it was about 20 seconds in early 2000s, now it is over 24 seconds).

Here you go.

https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

25 minutes added since the mid-80s due to time between pitches.

2 hour game-time averages are not possible, but 2:30 is.
   16. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:08 PM (#5884657)
what's the composition(of this 64 minutes)? I'm sure this has been done. 2019: 2:05-2:20 breaks per half inning, any idea what the breaks were in 1939? I'd guess 90 seconds. Pitcher usage: 2019: just over 4 per game, 1939: 1.5 to 2.0? Balls in play decreasing while increase in foul balls (ie more total pitches). Pace between pitches (I recall it was about 20 seconds in early 2000s, now it is over 24 seconds).


Obviously, it's impossible to really know the answer to this in 1939. But this article compared a 1984 game to a 2014 game and concluded this:

There were 146 inaction pitches in the 1984 game.

There were 144 of these pitches in the 2014 game.

The total time for the inaction pitches in 1984 — the elapsed time between a pitcher releasing one pitch and his release of the next pitch — was 32 minutes and 47 seconds.

The total time for inaction pitches in 2014 was 57 minutes and 41 seconds.

This is how a game can have an almost identical number of pitches thrown, batters faced, baserunners, hits, walks, strikeouts, and runs scored compared to another game, yet take more than a half-hour longer. This, plus the modest difference in commercial breaks, explains nearly everything. It took nine seconds longer for a pitcher to get rid of the ball in 2014.


If MLB wanted to speed up games, the easiest way to do it is to speed up the time between pitches. Do it by rule, by trying to change the culture, somehow. That's it. That they haven't done so can only mean that they don't really want to.

EDIT: Coke to snapper. But seriously, if anybody is interested in this topic, read the article that we both linked. It answers the question. It's not some great mystery and it's not intentional walks or replay reviews or pitching changes or even lengthening commercial breaks.
   17. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:10 PM (#5884660)
The average NFL game has been slowly creeping up, as well, and was about 3:11 in 2018. Several years ago, the NFL tried to slow down the average annual increase, and focused on clocked time between events. It was a lot of little things:
- The time between a made PAT and the kickoff of the next possession;
- The way halftime's start and endpoints were determined;

They also increased the use of split-screens for some commercial breaks, like when there is a commercial before and after a made field goal.

The funny thing is, as MLB and the NFL average length of games come closer and closer together, virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball. NFL games average less than 12 minutes of game action in 3:11 of game length, so there is obviously a lot of "standing around". Why this double standard?

I would argue a big advantage for football is that the clock itself is a part of the intrigue. There are times when I watch the clock almost more than the action, because there is a "two-minute drill", or an end of a half or game, or my team is up three with six minutes to go and they want to kill clock as much as they want points. Sometimes, the thing I want my team to do is exactly "stand around" for 40 seconds.

Also, there is so much action between plays that the "standing around" is actually pretty interesting. On 1st-and-10, your team runs the ball to the left for three yards. On 2nd-and-7, do you run again, and set up 3rd-and-short? Play action? Go into the shotgun with four receivers? As a fan, you are watching the decision making occur in real time, you can discuss it with your friends, you watch the replay of the previous play...or you have 30-40 predictable second intervals of grabbing a drink in the fridge, or looking up scores on your phone in between plays. Is there anything remotely similar in baseball?

   18. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:13 PM (#5884662)
inaction pitches


That's a confusing name for it, as I wondered if it was lacking a hyphen.

   19. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:15 PM (#5884663)
That's a confusing name for it, as I wondered if it was lacking a hyphen.


Sorry, I didn't want to over-quote the article. This refers to pitches on which the batter did not make contact and which did not end a plate appearance - so no foul balls, balls in play, strike three, ball four.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:16 PM (#5884666)
The funny thing is, as MLB and the NFL average length of games come closer and closer together, virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball. NFL games average less than 12 minutes of game action in 3:11 of game length, so there is obviously a lot of "standing around". Why this double standard?


I would never voluntarily go to another NFL game, just because the TV timeouts are the literal definition of standing around time. At least between-inning activity at MLB games is natural (it occurs at pretty much every level, regardless whether there are TV cameras there), with guys taking warm-up pitches and throwing the ball around the infield.

NFL games just have players standing still waiting for the TV man to tell him it's OK to play again.


   21. SoSH U at work Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5884670)
Sorry, I didn't want to over-quote the article. This refers to pitches on which the batter did not make contact and which did not end a plate appearance - so no foul balls, balls in play, strike three, ball four.


I looked it up. But they should have called it something else, like between-pitch events or inaction gaps. Because inaction and in-action mean two different things, and it's not really describing pitches, but the space between them.
   22. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:19 PM (#5884671)
The funny thing is, as MLB and the NFL average length of games come closer and closer together, virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball. NFL games average less than 12 minutes of game action in 3:11 of game length, so there is obviously a lot of "standing around". Why this double standard?
Because every single NFL game is an Event, because there is only one per week. Each NFL game is roughly as important as a week and a half worth of baseball games. If you've got the rest of the week for your team to be dormant, who cares that much if the game is a little longer?

If teams only played baseball games once per week, and usually on the weekend to boot, no one would much remark on a 3+ hour game time either.
   23. Zach Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:27 PM (#5884678)
Also, there is so much action between plays that the "standing around" is actually pretty interesting.

As you say, the time between plays in football is much more interesting than the time between pitches. You have the team running down the field, subbing in new players, setting up in a new formation, possible motion before the snap. Sometimes teams have trouble getting off a play before the play clock runs out.

Can you imagine how dull football would be without a play clock? You'd have everyone standing around until the coach had everything set up just the way he wanted. Or they'd already have everything set up, but they'd take a breather or delay things just to stay in their preferred rhythm.

Somehow baseball got into that exact situation, where you're watching a pitcher who could easily throw the ball right now psyche himself up for fifteen seconds first.
   24. pikepredator Posted: September 30, 2019 at 02:34 PM (#5884681)
Also, there is so much action between plays that the "standing around" is actually pretty interesting. On 1st-and-10, your team runs the ball to the left for three yards. On 2nd-and-7, do you run again, and set up 3rd-and-short? Play action? Go into the shotgun with four receivers?


Also, between-play replay is more interesting in football since it's tricky to catch all the action the first time around - partially because so much can happen in so many places, and also because of close-up camera work. Multiple viewings of the same play are simply more interesting in football.
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 30, 2019 at 05:14 PM (#5884759)
The funny thing is, as MLB and the NFL average length of games come closer and closer together, virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball. NFL games average less than 12 minutes of game action in 3:11 of game length, so there is obviously a lot of "standing around". Why this double standard?

Because with baseball you never know when you're going to get stuck with a 4 hour game. The Red Sox alone had 16 of those games in 2019. Whereas in football it's rare for a game to go past 3 and a half hours, which makes it a lot easier to plan for any after game activities (or sleep, if you're on the East Coast watching a game in a non-Eastern time zone.) A 4 hour afternoon game is one thing, but when a game in Chicago runs past midnight back in the East, I'm just screaming at my TV set to get this ####### game over with.

If I knew that every baseball game was going to end in 3 hours 5 minutes and 35 seconds, or if they all began by 7:05 in the East, then the length of of the game wouldn't bother me. But the best thing about baseball (its lack of a time clock) is also sometimes its curse.
   26. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 05:29 PM (#5884762)

The funny thing is, as MLB and the NFL average length of games come closer and closer together, virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball. NFL games average less than 12 minutes of game action in 3:11 of game length, so there is obviously a lot of "standing around". Why this double standard?

I find all the time between plays in football boring as hell. I've fallen asleep during the Super Bowl the last few years. Also, I am old.
   27. Howie Menckel Posted: September 30, 2019 at 05:40 PM (#5884765)
I would never voluntarily go to another NFL game, just because the TV timeouts are the literal definition of standing around time.


I find all the time between plays in football boring as hell. I've fallen asleep during the Super Bowl the last few years.


"Who are two guys (among millions) who should never attend a Super Bowl?"

I've been to three of them and - well, geesh, it's the Super Bowl, it must be as exciting as hell, right?

um no. more than half the fans in the stands don't even care who wins the game. so during those long breaks, it's eerily dull. the players just stand around for a minute or two, before finally getting into the huddle - where at least they are leaning in. you can see the referee waiting for the TV guys to tell him when to resume play.

you could go to a preseason game not knowing what was going on, but at least you would think, "Wow, these fans are really into it!" compared to a Super Bowl stadium crowd.

it's weird. the fourth quarter starts getting ok if the game is close, though.
   28. bunyon Posted: September 30, 2019 at 05:57 PM (#5884771)
Somehow baseball got into that exact situation, where you're watching a pitcher who could easily throw the ball right now psyche himself up for fifteen seconds first.

This probably influence HR and K rates, as well. The entire reason the batter and pitcher want to go slow is to better prepare. The pitcher has more pinpoint control, the batter digs in for a harder swing. I suspect if we could enforce the 12 second clock, we'd see fewer Ks and HRs.

(I didn't explain this well but it makes sense in my head).
   29. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 30, 2019 at 06:07 PM (#5884775)
um no. more than half the fans in the stands don't even care who wins the game. so during those long breaks, it's eerily dull. the players just stand around for a minute or two, before finally getting into the huddle - where at least they are leaning in. you can see the referee waiting for the TV guys to tell him when to resume play.


So it's a glorified exhibition, like the baseball post-season.
   30. Captain Supporter Posted: September 30, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5884776)
virtually nobody claims that the NFL games are too long, or that there is too much "standing around", like they do in baseball.


Speak for yourself. I record the games, and fast forward through all of the commercials, half time, and any play stoppage (e.g., penalties, replays) longer than 30 seconds or so plus shorter ones when I feel like it. It takes less than an hour to watch the game, and I miss nothing except for some of the talking head 'wisdom'.

Of course I also do the same thing for baseball. If the games runs late, I'll finish it up in the morning. Still, watch a game on YouTube from the 1950's and you'll see that it is a much more pleasant experience because the games really does move along.
   31. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:03 PM (#5884788)
Football is also able to keep virtually all games within a remarkably tight window. Rarely does a game go less than 3 hours, or more than 3:15. One team is usually trying to kill the clock, and the other to extend the game. The number of timeouts expended is about the same in every game.

A few people above were complaining about how boring football games can be in person, and I agree that they are much less interesting in person. However, the NFL gets that it is a TV sport, and constructs it accordingly. And for most people going to an NFL game, they are going as much for the non-football experience (tailgating, eating and drinking, talking sh*t for or against your team while wearing your favorite player's jersey, whatever) as the game itself.

   32. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:08 PM (#5884789)
2 hour game-time averages are not possible,


And the reason why we need a Mark Buehrle school of game management to open asap.

Get the ball, toe the rubber and look for sign, pitch the ball. Simple as that, 8-10 seconds max. Also be wickedly good at controlling the running game so you don't waste time with runners on by throwing over a bazillion times.

   33. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:26 PM (#5884794)

In all seriousness, though, watching baseball today seems like a different experience than it did 20-30 years ago. Maybe I'm just older and there are more distractions around, but I used to have no problem watching the game without interruption. Now I often find that I need to be doing something else (reading a book, doing work, etc) while watching the game in the background, otherwise the long pauses are really noticeable.

It's a problem with the pace of the game moreso than the length -- I'll stay up late for extra inning games, no problem. More baseball is a good thing as long as there's action. But the increase in Ks combined with the longer games means the time between actual events is ever expanding.*

* I'm not complaining about the increase in homers -- even though it's gotten a bit out of hand, home runs are still exciting.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:38 PM (#5884796)
It's a problem with the pace of the game moreso than the length -- I'll stay up late for extra inning games, no problem. More baseball is a good thing as long as there's action. But the increase in Ks combined with the longer games means the time between actual events is ever expanding.*

Right. We have fewer live-ball baseball events, and we've increased the game length by 20%. So the actual baseball/hour ratio has fallen dramatically.
   35. Davo Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:51 PM (#5884798)
The experience of swatching baseball has gotten worse and worse and worse in my lifetime, and it shows no signs of getting any better, and this year it’s finally reached the point where I don’t even have any interest in the playoffs. The only baseball I’ve seen this year has been the 9th innings of a few potential no-hitters.

So it’s not a theoretical problem with me. I’ve gone from paying for MLBTV and season tickets at Target Field to this. The game really sucks and is getting worse, rapidly.
   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 30, 2019 at 07:58 PM (#5884800)
you could go to a preseason game not knowing what was going on, but at least you would think, "Wow, these fans are really into it!" compared to a Super Bowl stadium crowd.

Howie, have you been to a Redskins preseason game at FedEx lately?

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

In all seriousness, though, watching baseball today seems like a different experience than it did 20-30 years ago. Maybe I'm just older and there are more distractions around, but I used to have no problem watching the game without interruption. Now I often find that I need to be doing something else (reading a book, doing work, etc) while watching the game in the background, otherwise the long pauses are really noticeable.

I find there's much more difference between the stadium experience the 80's and today than there is in the TV experience. The seats are more expensive, free parking is now a distant memory, cheap public transportation is often nonexistent, the loudspeaker noise never stops, and whenever there's a truly important game and you want a half decent seat, you're at the mercy of the secondary market if you didn't think of buying a ticket months in advance. (Yes, I know that the secondary market is at your mercy for games that don't matter, but so what?)

OTOH the TV experience is a lot better, with High Definition TVs and an infinite choice of games. But they've both been around for so long now that I barely even notice it.

The only worse thing about the TV experience are those excruciating MLB commercials that get repeated so often EVERY BLEEPING NIGHT that I want to throw a brick through the screen every time I hear Bud Selig, who should take a hint and die, talking about Mike Trout, or hear about how the sainted Mike Trout calls his disabled grandmother before every game just to tell her he just wants to play the game. Even Cal Ripken and Derek Jeter never got that degree of saturation treatment, and I think I'd almost be willing to pay an extra 50 bucks a year if MLB would just destroy those commercials once and for all.
   37. Belfry Bob Posted: October 01, 2019 at 12:51 PM (#5884967)
Just throw the ball. Don't step out of the box. Allow two foul balls on a 3-2 count, then it's a strikeout. Limit designated pitching staffs to reduce bullpen options - no position player pitchers, so only the so-designated pitchers can throw.

Fixed!
   38. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 01, 2019 at 01:48 PM (#5884993)
People here complain too much. There has never been a better time to be a baseball fan - the game is more accessible than ever.
   39. Davo Posted: October 01, 2019 at 01:51 PM (#5884994)
All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. Now eat your gruel!
   40. McCoy Posted: October 01, 2019 at 01:55 PM (#5884995)
More accessible and more boring than ever.
   41. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 01, 2019 at 02:09 PM (#5885008)

I think the game is great which is why I don't advocate for radical changes. But enforce the existing rules, fix the ball and the obvious problems with instant replay, and most importantly don't make additional changes that mess up the game for no reason without testing them first.
   42. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: October 01, 2019 at 05:01 PM (#5885086)
I can't verify this offhand, but I think college football games are also getting longer. Games in the 3:30 time slot seem to regularly go past 7:00 PM
   43. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 01, 2019 at 08:34 PM (#5885161)
Not surprising, given that half of them go into about 15 ####### overtimes, thanks to the dumbest rule in any sport.

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
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMiller, Simmons elected to HOF on Modern Era ballot
(66 - 9:25pm, Dec 11)
Last: yest

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(1422 - 9:20pm, Dec 11)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2019)
(97 - 9:01pm, Dec 11)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogYankees, Gerrit Cole agree to record 9-year, $324M deal
(95 - 9:00pm, Dec 11)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPhillies to sign Didi Gregorius | MLB.com
(22 - 8:53pm, Dec 11)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogKEN HARRELSON NAMED 2020 FORD C. FRICK AWARD WINNER
(36 - 8:31pm, Dec 11)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(921 - 8:20pm, Dec 11)
Last: Richard

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-11-2019
(16 - 8:16pm, Dec 11)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogLou Whitaker snubbed from the Hall of Fame again
(150 - 7:59pm, Dec 11)
Last: blueshaker

Gonfalon CubsRegrets
(153 - 7:20pm, Dec 11)
Last: Zonk Has Two Faces, Both Laughing

NewsblogSome of baseball’s biggest stars are ready to change the game’s free-agency system – The Athletic
(18 - 7:04pm, Dec 11)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(398 - 6:01pm, Dec 11)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogWhite Sox trade for Nomar Mazara | MLB.com
(32 - 5:52pm, Dec 11)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogHefner becomes Mets pitching coach, Meulens bench coach
(2 - 4:47pm, Dec 11)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogMLB to stop testing minor leaguers for marijuana as part of new drug agreement, report says
(29 - 3:00pm, Dec 11)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.4558 seconds
46 querie(s) executed