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

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Does Cheating Matter?

“It’s hard for me not to look at my own numbers against them and be pissed,” a retired major league pitcher said. “Everyone involved deserves to be seriously punished because it’s wrong.”

– a retired major league pitcher on the Astros, quoted in ESPN, January 2020

Cheating is serious business. We know this, almost instinctively, from earliest childhood — the righteous anger one feels when you catch someone sneaking a peek at your cards, dropping a rock only after seeing you put down scissors, sticking out a suspiciously well-placed foot preventing your escape in a game of tag. That’s not fair — cheater! You appeal to others around you, trying to get them to see, to mete out justice. Something has been disrupted here; something is wrong that can only be righted with punishment. You entered into a contest with agreed-upon rules, and those rules were broken in favor of cheap victory. It is self-evidently outrageous, self-evidently cruel, and even if justice is not done — even if the false victory is upheld through deception, lack of witnesses, or negligence of investigation — the hurt is indelible. You will never play rock-paper-scissors with that particular kid again. You will tell all your friends, too, not to engage in contests with them. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.

And yet we know, too, an instinct coming from a similarly primal place, that cheating, when executed for one’s own benefit, and especially when executed without detection, can be valuable, if a little guilt-inducing. When the value of the prize claimed outweighs the guilt, it can even feel better than a straightforward win. After all, the other party, if they were smart enough, would have cheated, too, or at least cheated better than they did; and really, when you think about it, isn’t outsmarting the opposition part of the competition? Haven’t you, in the successful execution of your subterfuge, put in more effort than the loser now sulking about your victory? Isn’t this all just part of the game — a part of the game that you happened to be better at? You are not a cheater, no; that word doesn’t apply to what you’ve done. To call the means of your success cheating would be to demean the skill involved in said success, you think. One might almost consider the loser who is accusing you of cheating to be the real cheater — trying to steal away, through non-competitive, extrajudicial means, the victory you earned through your own ingenuity. Cheating is bad. And you, what you have done, isn’t bad.

So, how would all of you answer this question?

 

QLE Posted: April 25, 2020 at 01:01 AM | 34 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dirty rotten cheaters

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. Jay Seaver Posted: April 25, 2020 at 03:22 PM (#5944268)
I tend to land on "cheating is obviously bad, but there is no practical remedy". There is no punishment that is severe enough to serve as a 100% deterrent, and no way to rewrite history that doesn't look, in some way, absurd. It leads to escalating punishments because people get so irate that the last one didn't eradicate the problem, even if they are able to rationalize that, actually, batters want pitchers using a little bit of sticky stuff, and, no, really, ballplayers suffer from ADHD at ten times the rate of the general male population.

Anyway, it seems to me that if you want to prevent cheating, you make it harder and less enticing, because while punishment is immediately satisfying, it can only go so far, and sending the message that something is awful enough that you can do something disproportionate in retribution, you're suggesting that the game is more fragile than it really is, and sometimes creating perverse incentives to cheat better.
   2. SoSH U at work Posted: April 25, 2020 at 03:31 PM (#5944273)
Cheating exists on a continuum. The guy who holds up the ball that he didn't catch but wants to trick the ump into thinking he did is cheating. So was Tonya Harding giloolying Nancy Kerrigan.

Obviously, how much it matters depends on the nature of the offense, the degree to which it is accepted as part of the game, the possibility for detection, the mechanism of enforcement when cheating is detected, etc. There's no one-size-fits-all answer.

   3. It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out Posted: April 25, 2020 at 04:22 PM (#5944302)
Nice--the ultra-rare question headline to which the obvious answer isn't "no".
   4. Booey Posted: April 25, 2020 at 06:32 PM (#5944335)
Whether it's PED's or sign stealing, I don't see any reason to believe modern players cheat more than past generations did. Modern fans just care about it more.

(This isn't saying that players who get caught shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. The level of outrage nowadays just seems to be way over the top compared to how people reacted to cheaters in the past)
   5. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 25, 2020 at 09:11 PM (#5944361)
Whether it's PED's or sign stealing, I don't see any reason to believe modern players cheat more than past generations did. Modern fans just care about it more.

In great part because it's now so much easier to detect and become common knowledge. It took 50 years for the Giants' sign stealing of 1951 to be widely publicized. Compare that to the relatively small time lapse between the 2017-18 sign stealing and when it became universally known.

And as SoSH says, there's also a continuum of cheating, and that continuum is highly subjective. If you asked 100 fans to take these types of cheating and rank them in order of moral (not legal) seriousness, I doubt if you'd get more than a handful of people who ranked them identically:

spitballs / ball scuffing / etc.
sign stealing a la Houston
betting on one's own team to win game 7 of the World Series without any attempt to influence the outcome by underhanded means
amphetamines pre-testing
amphetamines post-testing
steroids pre-testing
steroids post-testing
deking an umpire on a trapped fly ball / line drive
deking an umpire by pitch framing
deking an umpire on a non-HBP

Let's see how long it would take for any two people to rank the above identically, or even for people to express an opinion without being accused to "hypocrisy" or "fanboyism", or something similar along those lines.
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2020 at 09:48 PM (#5944371)
Cheating probably doesn't matter too much, but ultimately you have to be serious about preventing it, whether it's ped's, electonic sign stealing, or doctoring baseballs etc... the margins of improvements are probably very minor... but so what.. you have to always as an organization insist on preventing it... or else it will become as silly as people literally tripping runners... (which has happened in the past)

the point of vigilance isn't about the relative merits of a potential cheating scheme, it's about the fact that you need to (as barney fife would say) "nip it in the bud"...
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2020 at 09:54 PM (#5944376)

And as SoSH says, there's also a continuum of cheating, and that continuum is highly subjective. If you asked 100 fans to take these types of cheating and rank them in order of moral (not legal) seriousness, I doubt if you'd get more than a handful of people who ranked them identically:


Agree... I'm in the camp that actually violating in game rules is much worse than rules about body health... so I would rank ped usage very low(or not at all) , while ranking electronic surveillance or doctoring in game products very high. At the same time, I have zero issues with sign stealing by a runner on second base...
   8. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM (#5944388)
At the risk of killing the thread, I'll rank those offenses from worst to least morally offensive, in a HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE order:

1. sign stealing a la Houston
2. steroids pre-testing (because of the specific unfair advantage it gave to intelligent users over non-users)
3. steroids post-testing (not that it's any better, but it's easier to detect and therefore less likely to continue on an ongoing basis by the same player)**

[small gap]

4. betting on one's own team to win game 7 of the World Series without any attempt to influence the outcome by underhanded means (only if it's a one and done, and done openly)

[small gap]

5. amphetamines post-testing (because the reasoning for the ban is health-related)

[small gap]

6T. spitballs / ball scuffing / etc. (I put this in the category of detectable misdemeanor cheating with appropriate misdemeanor penalties)
6T. amphetamines pre-testing (sorry, AFAIC these were used solely to remain on the field, and with little demonstrable effect on actual performance beyond the psychological)

[small gap]

8T. deking an umpire on a trapped fly ball / line drive
8T. deking an umpire on a non-HBP
8T. deking an umpire by pitch framing
(all perfectly acceptable gamesmanship AFAIC, and anyway, the first two are correctable by replay and the last one will be done away with by roboumps)

** OTOH I'm open to allowing certain types of steroids in certain highly specific sets of circumstances, strictly regulated and with strict time limits.




   9. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:03 PM (#5944398)
and I'm in the camp, that even though I agree with you on about 80 percent of our arguments, I just don't care about steroids in the slightest. For them to work at all, the player has to actually do some type of working out, all they really help is increase the benefits of their work outs, they aren't really cheating in my opinion, and that is where we disagree.
   10. cardsfanboy Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:05 PM (#5944400)
meanwhile stuff like spitballs is in my opinion active cheating... sign stealing from a tv screen, active cheating... etc... .active cheating to me is much, much worse than passive cheating which is where I place things like ped's.
   11. Booey Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:35 PM (#5944412)
#8 - Yes, it's highly subjective, and as your list shows, that subjectivity is often determined by which generation engaged in which type of cheating. Your list can basically be summed up as:

1 - Ways that modern players cheat = very bad

2 - Ways that old time players cheated = no big deal

Like I said, the only thing that's changed is people's attitudes towards cheating.
   12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:36 PM (#5944413)
and I'm in the camp, that even though I agree with you on about 80 percent of our arguments, I just don't care about steroids in the slightest. For them to work at all, the player has to actually do some type of working out, all they really help is increase the benefits of their work outs, they aren't really cheating in my opinion, and that is where we disagree.

meanwhile stuff like spitballs is in my opinion active cheating... sign stealing from a tv screen, active cheating... etc... .active cheating to me is much, much worse than passive cheating which is where I place things like ped's.

That's very weird to me. PEDs expose people to real (if unknown) health risks. Spitballs, sign stealing, scuffing the ball, corked bats, etc., etc. hurt no actual human beings. Baseball is a zero sum game.
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:47 PM (#5944420)
I rarely have posted in the PED threads, but that was my one issue - the idea of some baseball player in their 20s who was a borderline MLB guy having to decide between playing it safe and probably not having a career, or risking his health and possibly making millions.

and we still don't know how McGwire, Bonds, and friends will fare in 10 years from their choices.

I realize anti-PED zealots may be convinced they are doomed, while others may be convinced they have nothing to worry about.

but I don't like the idea of humans as lab rats.
   14. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: April 25, 2020 at 11:56 PM (#5944427)
Whether other players are using or not isn't relevant to the decision of the marginal MLB player. Regardless of whether there are other people using, there's going to be a marginal player, and there's always going to be some incentive for him to use.
   15. baudib Posted: April 26, 2020 at 12:23 AM (#5944444)
It's very clear is that sports governing bodies like the IOC and the NCAA and pro leagues will be legislating against PEDs even if there's no known health-risk.

It's also extremely clear that baseball doesn't give a #### about cheating and never has.

   16. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 26, 2020 at 08:31 AM (#5944481)
and I'm in the camp, that even though I agree with you on about 80 percent of our arguments, I just don't care about steroids in the slightest. For them to work at all, the player has to actually do some type of working out, all they really help is increase the benefits of their work outs, they aren't really cheating in my opinion, and that is where we disagree.

You're absolutely right about the necessity for workouts to make steroids effective, but where we part company is the big difference such a combination can make. You may remember the scores of times I've scoffed at the idea that steroids were some sort of a "magic pill", but steroids plus intelligent workouts have the ability to take players' physical development to a level not possible without them----as you yourself point out. And that sort of an advantage, which is possible only when it includes serious risks to long-term health, is something that IMO shouldn't be tolerated.

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

#8 - Yes, it's highly subjective, and as your list shows, that subjectivity is often determined by which generation engaged in which type of cheating. Your list can basically be summed up as:

1 - Ways that modern players cheat = very bad

2 - Ways that old time players cheated = no big deal


Trust me, if old time players (meaning my "boyhood heroes" in the cliche du jour) had been caught doing what Barry Bonds did, I would've been every bit as repelled, and so would the writers of the time. The difference is how steroids changed the game, not who took them or when.

And it's a tragedy that to me is further compounded by my belief that the #1 villain of the "steroid era" might well have been the greatest player of all time even without steroids. But we'll never know, and other than among those who judge players solely by statistics, his reputation remains clouded at best. Let's just say that if he had it to do over, Barry Bonds might have chosen a different path, and instead of being the poster boy for cheating, he might have been considered a worthy continuation of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron by 98% of fandom, rather than by 50%.

But we'll never know, and we can't change history.
   17. bachslunch Posted: April 26, 2020 at 09:48 AM (#5944497)
Sure, why not? My ranking.

I have varying degrees of problems with all of these [added one]:

1. betting on one's own team to win game 7 of the World Series without any attempt to influence the outcome by underhanded means (illegal and calls the integrity of the game into fundamental question)
2. sign stealing a la Houston (involves widespread team involvement, not just individual choice, to gain an illegal advantage)
3. spitballs / ball scuffing / etc. (involves an individual but not team level attempt to gain illegal advantage, and it usually works. Also can cause injury to another player, the batter)
4[tie]. steroids post-testing (this and the next involve an individual but not team level attempt to gain illegal advantage, though how well they actually work is potentially debatable)
4[tie]. amphetamines post-testing
5. corking bats (ranks lowest because while it's illegal, there's sufficient scientific evidence that the player doing so gains no advantage, and it's an individual attempt)

I have no problem with these, and are thus not ranked:

steroids pre-testing
amphetamines pre-testing
deking an umpire on a trapped fly ball / line drive
deking an umpire by pitch framing
deking an umpire on a non-HBP

For me, the presence of a MLB rule banning something is the overriding factor.
   18. Walt Davis Posted: April 26, 2020 at 06:21 PM (#5944709)
Trust me, if old time players (meaning my "boyhood heroes" in the cliche du jour) had been caught doing what Barry Bonds did, I would've been every bit as repelled, and so would the writers of the time.

They did and you know it. Every bit of medical evidence, every sporting body in the world recognizes the performance enhancement from amphetamines, you simply refuse to accept all of that evidence and add the laughable notion that your heroes only used greenies to cure hangovers (while amazingly only using just enough greenies to get themselves back to normal, never above).

Seriously, you live in a fantasy world on this issue.

Greenies and steroids enhance performance. There are really only two options: Use of either substance was not against the written rules, was accepted under the prevailing player ethics and undertaken with the knowoledge of the teams and therefore not cheating ... or ... both are performance-enhancing supplements, the players knew it and therefore both are cheating.

The difference is how steroids changed the game, not who took them or when.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The supposed impact was HRs and Ks which you may have noticed haven't abated in the last 15 years. The other supposed impact is longer careers. That one has a bit more legs but there are competing explanations ... plus you might want to take a look at career length in the greenies era.

I also find that a strange ethical stance. An individual player cheating is OK as long as it doesn't change the underlying nature of the game (which would be true for almost any individual) but it is wrong if the "cheating" is sufficiently widespread as to change the nature of the game? You think Giambi's decision to use steroids was based on his desire to change the nature of the game?
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 26, 2020 at 08:32 PM (#5944742)
Walt, we've been through this a thousand times in every last detail and every possible hypothetical, and in historical citations from Babe Ruth's goat testicles to Jim Bouton's ridiculing of the idea of greenies being performance enhancers, and I'm not looking to make it a thousand and one. I'm interested in seeing how others rank those 10 offenses, but I'm not particularly interested in resurrecting the steroid wars. I've said from the start that all this is 100% subjective, and AFAIC your subjective take is as good as anyone's. If you want to go on even more about this, I'll be content to let you have the last word.
   20. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 26, 2020 at 09:24 PM (#5944764)
undertaken with the knowoledge of the teams and therefore not cheating


TLR on line 1 for you, Walt
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 26, 2020 at 10:39 PM (#5944781)
Whether other players are using or not isn't relevant to the decision of the marginal MLB player. Regardless of whether there are other people using, there's going to be a marginal player, and there's always going to be some incentive for him to use.

Not if that particular player wouldn't be marginal if 60% of minor leaguers weren't 'roiding.
   22. BrianBrianson Posted: April 27, 2020 at 04:28 AM (#5944821)
Cheating that hurts people is clearly different than that which doesn't. I'm okay with moral outrage at Tonya Harding (say). Not at ball scuffers - I want players to be trying to win, and if they can get away with cheating ... go for it. If you get caught, take the penalty and move on.
   23. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: April 27, 2020 at 09:50 AM (#5944872)
snapper it's not always going to be the same guy (that depends on who is using). but there's always going to be somebody. so steroid use isn't what provides an incentive for marginal players to use steroids. it's that there are a limited number of major league jobs and a larger pool of players who would like one. once you've got competition you've got an incentive to cheat.
   24. majorflaw Posted: April 27, 2020 at 01:56 PM (#5945004)
“The supposed impact was HRs and Ks which you may have noticed haven't abated in the last 15 years.“

Now you are assuming a fact not in evidence, Counselor, that players suddenly stopped using. iirc, it still remains the case that the longest non-lifetime ban for PEDs was given to a player who did not fail his drug tests during the relevant period. That certainly suggests to me that there are other, more careful, players who continue to use. And, as I have suggested several times, once we develop a steroid which does not come with health risks players will not only be allowed to use, it will be expected of them. In the interim just don’t fail a test, do something crazy like hit seventy HRs or piss off the “commissioner” and you’ll be fine.
   25. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 27, 2020 at 02:21 PM (#5945022)
And, as I have suggested several times, once we develop a steroid which does not come with health risks players will not only be allowed to use, it will be expected of them.
Would you be interested in watching baseball (or any sport) if you knew for a fact, beyond any possibility of ignoring it away, that virtually every player was artificially enhanced? I'm not sure I would. A lot of the enjoyment of sports is seeing what feats the human body is capable of. If all of those feats now had to be attributed to the human body plus a significant level of artificial enhancement...meh. Golf has struggled with a related issue over the years as they've had to reconfigure courses to not be overwhelmed by players hitting the ball twice as far as they used to due (in major part) to advances in equipment.
   26. Jay Seaver Posted: April 27, 2020 at 02:38 PM (#5945042)
Would you be interested in watching baseball (or any sport) if you knew for a fact, beyond any possibility of ignoring it away, that virtually every player was artificially enhanced?


By some measures, that's what we're seeing, and it's just a matter of where we choose to draw the line. Over in the Covid threads, we occasionally hit on the fact that players are potentially more vulnerable because they've pushed their bodies relatively far away from "normal". Depending what your baseline is, players who chug protein shakes and then spend all day in the gym, inject themselves with painkillers or corticosteroids, or who are able to take ADHD/asthma medication, or who have had laser eye surgery, or who have had a tendon transplanted from another part of their body (and maybe those who train/throw harder because they know it's an option) are as "artificially enhanced" as anybody taking the "bad" steroids and HGH, and we more or less accept that.

And, hell, nobody watching football cares about steroids - they shrug off the suspensions of players who get caught and happily overlook that everybody on the team is a physical freak to an extent that wouldn't have been possible a generation or two ago.
   27. Booey Posted: April 27, 2020 at 03:15 PM (#5945072)
#25 - If literally everyone was doing it (see the Armstrong era Tour de France) then it would be a level playing field. What would be the problem with that? It's just entertainment.

People add too much deep meaning to sports sometimes, IMO.
   28. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 27, 2020 at 03:15 PM (#5945074)
Take away all the health risks, and the playing field becomes level. I wouldn't necessarily love the outcome, as it would only encourage more players to adopt the TTO approach to hitting that I detest. But it'd be nowhere near as disgusting as seeing some players be essentially forced to risk their health in order to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.
   29. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 27, 2020 at 03:34 PM (#5945085)
A level playing field isn't the only consideration, at least for me (and I think a not insignificant number of other fans). The fact that (hypothetically) all players are artificially enhanced diminishes the sport, even if they're on equal ground vis-a-vis each other. It ceases to be a "fully human" activity in a fundamental way, and that's less appealing.

Depending what your baseline is, players who chug protein shakes and then spend all day in the gym, inject themselves with painkillers or corticosteroids, or who are able to take ADHD/asthma medication, or who have had laser eye surgery, or who have had a tendon transplanted from another part of their body (and maybe those who train/throw harder because they know it's an option) are as "artificially enhanced" as anybody taking the "bad" steroids and HGH, and we more or less accept that.
Pretty much everything on this list helps players reach, maintain and/or regain the upper limits of their natural physical ability. They don't artificially expand that boundary.

And, hell, nobody watching football cares about steroids - they shrug off the suspensions of players who get caught and happily overlook that everybody on the team is a physical freak to an extent that wouldn't have been possible a generation or two ago.
Yeah, football fans have their own delusions - but I'm talking about a situation, as posited in 24, where it's 100% out in the open, universal, and expected. There wouldn't even be a thin reed of (im)plausible deniability to allow for off-shrugging by fans.
   30. Jay Seaver Posted: April 27, 2020 at 04:29 PM (#5945126)
Pretty much everything on this list helps players reach, maintain and/or regain the upper limits of their natural physical ability. They don't artificially expand that boundary.


I tend to see it as a blurrier line than that, and I suspect I'd see it even more that way if I were the one hitting the gym to make sure I could get the full benefit of my pharmaceutical regimen. It probably doesn't feel like cheating if you're putting in the work, and the most vilified drugs take a lot more work than the amphetamines that are almost-universally described as having a massive immediate effect but which are often brushed off. And I suspect everything on that list pushed some folks out of the game because they felt it was unnatural or too dangerous at first before it was refined and accepted into the mainstream.

Plus, the hypothetical "completely safe steroid" won't just be used in sports; it will hit the rest of society as well, and we'll slide our baseline with it.
   31. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 27, 2020 at 04:53 PM (#5945138)
Plus, the hypothetical "completely safe steroid" won't just be used in sports; it will hit the rest of society as well, and we'll slide our baseline with it.
Interesting point, although I think it would depend on the effects and how it was delivered. A pill that made me more muscular? Eh, I've never really been into being a muscular guy, but then again that was never an option. I might give it a try, and I expect a lot of other guys would. Women? Maybe not so much.

If the pill improved mental acuity, obviously a lot of people would go for it, although never underestimate the power of anti-intellectualism in America (as we're now seeing with painful clarity).

But I definitely wouldn't inject myself in the butt every day just to get more muscular, and I might very well not do it even for some marginal gains in intelligence.
   32. Jay Seaver Posted: April 27, 2020 at 05:06 PM (#5945148)
I probably wouldn't either, right now, but ask me again the next time I have to move. :) And then ask professional movers, or folks in construction, etc.
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 27, 2020 at 05:17 PM (#5945154)
A level playing field isn't the only consideration, at least for me (and I think a not insignificant number of other fans). The fact that (hypothetically) all players are artificially enhanced diminishes the sport, even if they're on equal ground vis-a-vis each other. It ceases to be a "fully human" activity in a fundamental way, and that's less appealing.

I said that allowing "safe" PEDs wouldn't be a great thing to do, since it would only encourage more swinging for the fences by marginal players and even less attention to making contact. And my opinion of TTO baseball is about as low as it gets.

OTOH it would help to level the playing field compared to a situation where some players were juicing and risking their health, while other players took a more long range view about their health. We'd at least be spared the sight of any more Ken Caminitis, and that in itself would be a big improvement over what we saw during the illegal "steroid era".

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

Plus, the hypothetical "completely safe steroid" won't just be used in sports; it will hit the rest of society as well, and we'll slide our baseline with it.

I'm not so sure that'd be the case, unless you're talking about some sort of steroids "magic pill", without any requirement for weight lifting to produce any positive results. I seriously doubt that anyone will ever invent a "muscle pill" that just works on its own, no matter how many claims will be made by the usual suspects on late night TV.
   34. Hank Gillette Posted: April 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM (#5946026)
That's very weird to me. PEDs expose people to real (if unknown) health risks.

That makes no sense. If the health risks are real, how can they be unknown?
If they are real, where is the proof?

Spitballs, sign stealing, scuffing the ball, corked bats, etc., etc. hurt no actual human beings.

They hurt the players on the opposing team. In extreme cases, they might allow an inferior team to beat a superior team.

They might prevent a marginal player from having a ML career (an argument also used against steroid use).

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
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNJ.com: Mets sale: Sheldon Adelson complicates Steve Cohen, Alex Rodriguez-Jennifer Lopez, Josh Harris-David Blitzer bids
(3 - 12:23pm, Jul 16)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogWashington Post opinion editor says Texas Rangers should drop their name because legendary lawmen they're named after are a 'cruel, racist force
(45 - 12:21pm, Jul 16)
Last: Weekly Journalist_

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(7407 - 12:12pm, Jul 16)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogIke at the Bat: Eisenhower's rumored baseball past
(12 - 12:08pm, Jul 16)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogThe Texas Rangers’ team name must go
(10 - 11:55am, Jul 16)
Last: winnipegwhip

NewsblogHow long will Trout reign as MLB's best player?
(11 - 11:24am, Jul 16)
Last: Ziggy: social distancing since 1980

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-16-2020
(1 - 10:28am, Jul 16)
Last: Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee)

NewsblogYasiel Puig signs with Atlanta Braves
(29 - 10:14am, Jul 16)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogMLB.TV costs $59.99 for the 60-game season
(13 - 9:30am, Jul 16)
Last: Eddie Gaedel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-15-2020
(4 - 7:58am, Jul 16)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogOT – NBA Revival Thread 2020
(569 - 4:37am, Jul 16)
Last: never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135

NewsblogPicking both 2020 MLB All-Star rosters -- even though there's no game
(9 - 4:14am, Jul 16)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogMcCarver opts out of Cardinals telecasts this season
(4 - 2:17am, Jul 16)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogThe Four Biggest Tactical Innovations We Could See This MLB Season
(3 - 9:36pm, Jul 15)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogReport: Blue Jays Exploring Possibility of Home Games in Buffalo
(28 - 9:02pm, Jul 15)
Last: Jose Canusee

-->

Page rendered in 0.4637 seconds
46 querie(s) executed