Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

ESPN: Jacobs: Verlander MVP-WTF!

Jacobs: The Death and Life of Great American League MVP Voting.

I will make this short-Verlander is a terriffic pitcher. Funny when you look at his 2011 season he started out as the same pitcher he was before. great stuff but a thrower then it kicked in and he kicked tail- However in no way-shape-form or fashion should a pitcher EVER win an MVP award. It’s really that simple. The same way no Running back should be the leading tackler on your Football team. verlander for all his achievments participated in less then 30% of his teams games. I am sorry you can’t be an MVP when you play less then 30% of your teams games. It is just that simple. he didn’t participate in over 70% of the Tigers contests. these same fools gave the Cy Young to 13 game winner Felix Hernandez the year before.13 wins gets him Cy Young? really?

These saber metric holier then thou smarter then you or I just ask them rubes are killing these awards. it really is simple. You win 13 games you don’t get CY. you participate in less then 70% of your teams games you don’t win MVP no matter how well you did in the 30%ish games you played. What’s next someone winning the hitting title based on projections? Perhaps stolen base leaders based on how fast they can run from the cops-you know how fast they can run? Some things don’t need to be over thought. Sometimes simple is good. Sadly these wizards of smart try to out think simple logic so they can come off sounding brilliant. There is nothing brilliant about giving the MVP to a player who because of the position he plays participating in less then 30% of his teams games.

Repoz Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:11 PM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: media, sabermetrics, tigers

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. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:45 PM (#3999572)
We're linking to ESPN.com comment threads now?
   2. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3999578)
Baseball is my favorite sport. I just love it.


Baseball for the Thinking Fan
   3. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3999579)
Wow, that's brilliantly bad.

Rather than using 30% of games (which is off, of course), what % of plays for his team did Verlander participate in? More than anyone else in the game, right? There's a counterargument!
   4. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3999582)
Repoz, you scamp!
   5. Monty Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#3999586)
These saber metric holier then thou smarter then you or I just ask them rubes are killing these awards.


Jack Keefe?
   6. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: November 22, 2011 at 06:59 PM (#3999589)
Jack Keefe?

Jack Keefe isn't that much a butcher of our fair language.
   7. Greg K Posted: November 22, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#3999603)
It's funny, in the other Verlander thread his MVP is being blamed on old school wins and the principle of the best player on a marginal playoff team geting the award (despite the fact the Tigers won the division easily). And here it's those SABR nerds getting the blame.

I guess I just never really paid attention, but I didn't realize there was such an anti-pitcher for MVP sentiment. Or I guess I knew it existed I just didn't know it was so absolute, or intense.

Out of (genuine) curiosity, how often do pitchers lead their league in WAR over the past 20 years?
   8. JJ1986 Posted: November 22, 2011 at 07:21 PM (#3999617)
Out of (genuine) curiosity, how often do pitchers lead their league in WAR over the past 20 years?


Verlander (tie) in 2011.
Greinke in 2009.
Randy Johnson (tie) in 1999.
Pedro in 1999.
Clemens in 1997.
Maddux in 1994.
Clemens in 1992.

Counting the two ties as 1 total win, 6 out of 40 times.
Pujols and Bonds are each 7 times. A-Rod is 6.
   9. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 22, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#3999622)
Out of (genuine) curiosity, how often do pitchers lead their league in WAR over the past 20 years?

I think it depends which WAR you're looking at.
   10. Yonder Alonso in misguided trousers (cardinal) Posted: November 22, 2011 at 07:28 PM (#3999623)
Concerning his sideswipe at last year's AL Cy Young, if you ignore W-L (which the pitcher has the least control over, in any case) and compare the top five vote-getters (Felix, David Price, CC Sabathia, Jon Lester, Jered Weaver) it's pretty clear that Felix was the best of them. Presumably, if Jacobs had had a vote (is there somewhere to look that up?) he didn't list Felix first.
   11. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: November 22, 2011 at 07:45 PM (#3999647)
It really is simple. If I choose an arbitrary number, your vote doesn't count.
   12. mex4173 Posted: November 22, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#3999683)
Would those be the same SABR nerds from 1953? 1952? 1950? 1943? 1942?
   13. filihok Posted: November 22, 2011 at 08:26 PM (#3999698)
These saber metric holier then thou smarter then you or I


I know the difference between 'then' and 'than', so, yeah, I may be smarter than you.
   14. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: November 22, 2011 at 08:38 PM (#3999714)
Who is this moron?
   15. 57i66135 right now is attacking rest Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:02 PM (#3999726)
Rather than using 30% of games (which is off, of course), what % of plays for his team did Verlander participate in? More than anyone else in the game, right? There's a counterargument!
i don't think that's the right way to look at it. it's not trivial to point out that, even if justin verlander pitched every inning of every game he started, and didn't allow a single run over the entire season, his team would still only have 34 wins. he may have faced 900 batters, but even so, the 700 PAs from a top level hitter will almost always be more valuable to his team than even the best pitching season because of the fact that the hitter's production will have been spread out over 160 games instead of ~35.


i think it's entirely wrongheaded for a person to say that no pitcher should ever win the MVP (or even just a token vote at the end of a ballot), but if we're valuing individual seasons of individual pitchers against individual seasons of individual hitters, it'd take a really special season to say that a pitcher was legitimately the most valuable player in a given league.


i don't think verlander was that this year, but i don't think any hitter separated himself from the pack enough to make verlander entirely unworthy.

whoever won this year would have been a weak candidate, anyway. there's no reason to isolate verlander for criticism related to that.
   16. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:05 PM (#3999728)
even if justin verlander pitched every inning of every game he started, and didn't allow a single run over the entire season, his team would still only have 34 wins.


"Only" 34 wins?
   17. Shredder Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:12 PM (#3999732)
However in no way-shape-form or fashion should a pitcher EVER win an MVP award. It’s really that simple. The same way no Running back should be the leading tackler on your Football team.
I don't think this guy understands analogies. A pitcher's job is to add value, always. A running backs job is not to make tackles unless all hell breaks loose. If you don't believe a pitcher should be eligible for the award, then make your case. But don't make your case with ridiculous analogies that make no sense.
   18. JJ1986 Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:18 PM (#3999738)
I don't think this guy understands analogies. A pitcher's job is to add value, always. A running backs job is not to make tackles unless all hell breaks loose. If you don't believe a pitcher should be eligible for the award, then make your case. But don't make your case with ridiculous analogies that make no sense.


If he wanted to compare it to football, defensive players never win the MVP award. That might have made sense.
   19. Derb Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:23 PM (#3999745)
i don't think verlander was that this year, but i don't think any hitter separated himself from the pack enough to make verlander entirely unworthy.


I think that's it right there. I'm a big Tiger fan, and am ecstatic that he won, but I also realize that a main reason he won is because there was no clear winner among position players. Bautista, Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Cabrera, and Granderson all stole votes from each other. Give a pitcher identical stats to Verlander in most any other year, and a position player wins it deservedly.
   20. Derb Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:25 PM (#3999749)
If he wanted to compare it to football, defensive players never win the MVP award. That might have made sense.


Don't they have separate POY awards for offense and defense? I'm having a brain-fart on that one.

Go even further. While a top linebacker or cornerback could win, an offensive lineman will likely NEVER win MVP.
   21. JJ1986 Posted: November 22, 2011 at 09:29 PM (#3999753)
Don't they have separate POY awards for offense and defense? I'm having a brain-fart on that one.


They have three, OPOY, DPOY and MVP.
   22. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: November 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM (#3999818)
However in no way-shape-form or fashion should a pitcher EVER win an MVP award. It’s really that simple.


Convincing argument. The all-caps "ever" should refute any dissenting opinion on this statement.

What’s next someone winning the hitting title based on projections?


This reminds me of the absurd, yet often-used argument against gay marriage: What's next, letting people marry their pets?

Both sentiments suggest that allowing something rational (a pitcher winning the MVP award / gay marriage) could lead to ridiculous happenings (hitting titles won based on projections / humans being allowed to marry their pets) that no sane person advocates.
   23. manchestermets Posted: November 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM (#3999835)
I don't think this guy understands analogies.


I don't think he understands how to button up his shirt. Have you seen some of his other stuff?

Men were misrable cause they would dragged to the stores by their pesty wives. Woman were shopping not for good merch but cheap crap for the most part but the worst of the worst is EVERY customer so it seemed was just looking. Put it this way the term “Just Looking” is akin to breaking up with your better half and them saying ” lets be friends”..Oh ram my head into the wall please. It got to be that I would approach a customer and say “hi how may I help you” and answer the question myself with “i know you are just looking”. Now if I was feeling feisty and not turkeyed over myself I would snap back with something like “ok mam let’s be honest you didn’t risk your life to come into my store with all the traffic and mayhem to just look isn’t that right”. Course if said customer was grumpy then they would snap at me “get your manager or yes I did”…


Is he for real, or is he someone who's hacked ESPN Radio's website and given himself a blogging account? Whatever low opinion I have of lots of media organisations, I've never seen one that's let someone so consistently illiterate pollute its output.
   24. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: November 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM (#3999841)
This reminds me of the absurd, yet often-used argument against gay marriage: What's next, letting people marry their pets?

Both sentiments suggest that allowing something rational (a pitcher winning the MVP award / gay marriage) could lead to ridiculous happenings (hitting titles won based on projections / humans being allowed to marry their pets) that no sane person advocates.


Justin Verlander married a designated hitter.
   25. chemdoc Posted: November 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#3999849)
Is he for real, or is he someone who's hacked ESPN Radio's website and given himself a blogging account? Whatever low opinion I have of lots of media organisations, I've never seen one that's let someone so consistently illiterate pollute its output.


I hope he did not hack them. The law is very strick about this sort of thing.
   26. asinwreck Posted: November 22, 2011 at 11:48 PM (#3999854)
Sabermetric Systems of Survival.
   27. Hit by Pitch Posted: November 23, 2011 at 12:09 AM (#3999861)
If he wanted to compare it to football, defensive players never win the MVP award. That might have made sense.


Lawrence Taylor is the only defensive player to win NFL MVP in 1986. The other non-offense player to win was Mark Moseley for the redskins in strike shortened 1982.
   28. Greg K Posted: November 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM (#3999867)
They have three, OPOY, DPOY and MVP.

So is the offensive player of the year always the MVP?
   29. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 23, 2011 at 12:43 AM (#3999870)
The Moseley thing is pretty amazing. Not only did they give the MVP to a kicker, they did it in a year where he missed three extra points. If they did that today the internets would explode.
   30. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 23, 2011 at 01:18 AM (#3999884)
I hope he did not hack them. The law is very strick about this sort of thing.

they may have to do an execption this time
   31. Starring RMc as Bradley Scotchman Posted: November 23, 2011 at 01:27 AM (#3999888)
Verlander is a terriffic pitcher

And you're an awffull speller.
   32. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: November 23, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#3999894)
So is the offensive player of the year always the MVP?


No. And perhaps more notably, the MVP doesn't always win the corresponding OPOY/DPOY award.
   33. CrosbyBird Posted: November 23, 2011 at 01:48 AM (#3999895)
This reminds me of the absurd, yet often-used argument against gay marriage: What's next, letting people marry their pets?

Cats and dogs! Living together!
   34. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 23, 2011 at 02:01 AM (#3999903)
I don't think this guy understands analogies.


I don't think he understands how to button up his shirt. Have you seen some of his other stuff?

Not bad, but here's an even better link from that page. Is this a great country or what?

Butt Implants Go Wrong

I couldn’t make this up if I tried. As bad as it sounds, it gets worse as you keep reading. I won’t spoil all the details, but some of the things you can look forward to in this blog include ass implants, transexuals, super-glue, tire sealant, and tubing. Keep going – I dare you.

It seems that plastic surgery is dangerous after all – someone better alert the Kardashians and Joan Rivers. The story seems like something out of a Wayans’ Brothers horror movie, but unfortunately for several people, it’s a true story.

In Miami, a young woman looking for a curvier figure to help her land a “cocktail” job at a nightclub sought the medical assistance of a she-man to give her a discount on buttock implants.** Now, exactly how much information this person knew before going into the surgery is up for question, but the procedure only cost a mere $700 – red flag #1. Usually, when some foreign concoction is being pumped into your body, it’s going to cost a lot more than what I paid for my new couch (unless it’s Botox – you can get that at any manequin-melting department store).

Moving on, the good “doctor” injected the victim with a combination of cement, super-glue, and flat-tire sealant. As rock solid as that sounds, things didn’t go too swimmingly and our naive young victim ended up in the hospital with some serious injuries.

Adding to this monstrous fail is the fact that said-”doctor” was operating without a medical license. Did I mention he/she is also a transexual? The twists just keep popping up around each corner! Especially when it’s been alleged that she-man performed the same operation on him/herself.

Moral of the story – Barbie was meant to be plastic, not people.


**
Attorney: Bad butt injection claims are false

Updated at 6 p.m. ET

By NBC Miami


MIAMI — A transgender woman accused of injecting a victim's buttocks with a substance consisting of cement, mineral oil and "Fix-a-Flat," is innocent , her attorney said Tuesday....
   35. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 23, 2011 at 02:29 AM (#3999917)
The other non-offense player to win was Mark Moseley for the redskins in strike shortened 1982.


Kicking field goals isn't offense?

Not only did they give the MVP to a kicker, they did it in a year where he missed three extra points.


IIRC, he set a record for consecutive successful field goal attempts.
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: November 23, 2011 at 03:18 AM (#3999941)
Rather than using 30% of games (which is off, of course), what % of plays for his team did Verlander participate in? More than anyone else in the game, right? There's a counterargument!


That is not even remotely true, I really wish the stupidity of this argument would ####### end.

On his own team you have Miguel Cabrera, who participated in 688 plate appearances, and particpated in 1263 putouts... compared to Verlanders 969 batters faced... then factor in that Cabrera was actually on the field as a ready particpant in 1322 innings, meaning at a minimum he was on the field for 3966 putouts and it's not even ####### close.

mind you I agree that Verlander does deserve a vote, but this stupid ass argument about number of people faced compared to oppostion plate appearances needs to be ended before someone actually takes this stupid #### seriously.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: November 23, 2011 at 03:23 AM (#3999942)
This reminds me of the absurd, yet often-used argument against gay marriage: What's next, letting people marry their pets?


god this is another one of those arguments that makes you just want to yell at the stupidity of the arguer... really are pets allowed to marry? as it stands men are allowed to marry, women are allowed to marry, underage kids aren't and pets aren't the argument isn't about pets and humans performing an action that is clearly against the law, the argument is two people who are legally allowed to marry, performing the action with each other..

of course we are talking about people that actually believe global warming isn't happening, evolution is just a theory, and trickle down economics actually works for the masses. we aren't talking about rational people here.
   38. I Remember When Posted: November 23, 2011 at 03:38 AM (#3999946)
#36 Amen. If this were true every MVP would be named Molina.
   39. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2011 at 03:48 AM (#3999950)
the pets one is silly.

the better play is three consenting adults seeking to marry.
why 2, and not 3?
"because it's always only been two people" doesn't quite work, because "it's always only been a man and a woman" didn't work, either.

the argument against 3 adults marrying (and this is not a topic I really care about) is liable to wind up sounding a lot like the argument that "traditional marriage" proponents raised.

'why should the state get in the way of 3 consenting adults who are in love?' would be the hurdle.
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 23, 2011 at 04:00 AM (#3999954)
On his own team you have Miguel Cabrera, who participated in 688 plate appearances, and particpated in 1263 putouts... compared to Verlanders 969 batters faced... then factor in that Cabrera was actually on the field as a ready particpant in 1322 innings, meaning at a minimum he was on the field for 3966 putouts and it's not even ####### close.

mind you I agree that Verlander does deserve a vote, but this stupid ass argument about number of people faced compared to oppostion plate appearances needs to be ended before someone actually takes this stupid #### seriously.


I agree that this whole attempt at quantifying pitchers and position players is silly, but you also have to acknowledge that Verlander initiated the play on the field with every single pitch, whereas you could only say the same about Cabrera when he was at the plate. Other than a handful of fielding plays that perhaps only he could have made (and since his dWAR was -0.7, that's doubtful), everything else he contributed to defense was essentially reactive and routine, and can hardly be compared in importance to a pitch.

As for whether or not Verlander deserved the MVP: It could have been either Bautista or Ellsbury instead of him, and any of the three would have been perfectly legitimate choices. But if you don't think pitchers should be eligible, just do the right thing and decline the honor of being on the voting roll.
   41. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 23, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#3999965)
You forgot the part about the world being 7000 years old, CFB.

And why should the state get in the way of three consenting adults who are in love?
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: November 23, 2011 at 04:46 AM (#3999972)
I agree that this whole attempt at quantifying pitchers and position players is silly, but you also have to acknowledge that Verlander initiated the play on the field with every single pitch


Never argued against that. I argue when people try to bring the batters faced vs the plate appearance crap. Treating each plate appearance on both side of the equation as an equal is massive stupidity, especially after dips. Heck ignoring the number of batters that the fielder is on the field for is equally stupid. The argument listing batters faced vs plate appearance is beyond retarded. Beyond stupid, beyond rational thought. It's simplistic brain dead analysis, that makes Buster Olney appear like a genius in comparison.

Break the argument down any other way you want, whether it's to list war, or whatever, but the argument about batters faced in comparison to plate appearances needs to stop before some one in the MSM picks up on it and runs with it(like they tried to do for a few weeks with the equally stupid concept of WPA)

I'm all for simplifying an argument to make a point, I'm not for simplifying it to basically lie about a persons value. The worse part is the people bringing these type of arguments are generally intelligent people and have gotten caught into a trap of trying to justify their position and looking for a simple way to answer their question.

You forgot the part about the world being 7000 years old, CFB.

And why should the state get in the way of three consenting adults who are in love?


don't even get me started on the young earth morons.

as to the state getting in the way of three consenting adults.... well to be honest, it really boils down to division of property when the marriage ends, and the potential debate there. If the marriage never ends, and all parties die on the same day there is almost no issue with marriage, but it's all about the division of assets in a divorce, death etc. It becomes supremely complicated the more parties involved. That is, and always will be the real issue. There is no such thing as the tradition of marriage, if you go back 50 years then whites marrying black is against the law, if you go back 300 hundred years, the church never sanctioned a marriage that didn't involve nobleman or massive amounts of money(the church only concern with marriage has, and always will be, about money) go back 400 years and marriage was basically slaving your daughter out, go back 2000 years you have gay marriage legalized, go to china less than 200 years and you have polygamy society... nobody with a ####### brain really thinks that the tradition of marriage is between two consenting adults one male, one female.
   43. a bebop a rebop Posted: November 23, 2011 at 05:03 AM (#3999981)
Thank you #38.
   44. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 23, 2011 at 05:13 AM (#3999984)
And why should the state get in the way of three consenting adults who are in love?


OK, so you've got a Terry Schiavo situation. Husband 1 wants to pull the plug. Husband 2 does not. How is that decided?

It seems to me there are probably a number of genuine issues like this with a 3-or-more-person union that don't exist in a two-person marriage. Enough to warrant state involvement? I don't know, but worth considering nonetheless.
   45. CrosbyBird Posted: November 23, 2011 at 06:20 AM (#3999994)
OK, so you've got a Terry Schiavo situation. Husband 1 wants to pull the plug. Husband 2 does not. How is that decided?

Living will? Designated priority for medical decisions? Arbitration to determine the weight of evidence as to the patient's wishes?

It seems to me there are probably a number of genuine issues like this with a 3-or-more-person union that don't exist in a two-person marriage. Enough to warrant state involvement? I don't know, but worth considering nonetheless.

"Because it's complicated" is a really bad reason for the government to stop consenting adults from behaving as they wish. If involvement is "establishing default provisions for the contract of marriage," that's one thing. If it's "telling people that they can't do it because it's messy," that's another thing entirely.
   46. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: November 23, 2011 at 06:35 AM (#3999995)
"Because it's complicated" is a really bad reason for the government to stop consenting adults from behaving as they wish.


Is it behavior, or simply setting the terms of a government-sanctioned contract?There's nothing stopping a trio from living as husband and wife, plus 1.

And as I said, I don't really know what the answer is. It just seems that the question itself is far more complicated and requires far more consideration than simply bowing to the wishes of consenting adults.
   47. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: November 23, 2011 at 07:29 AM (#4000003)
You could get some hilarious divorce arguments in a 3 way marriage. Person A wants to divorce B, but not C. B wants to divorce C, but not A. And C wants to divorce A, but not B.

O/U till a movie exec picks up this idea for a RomCom - 84 minutes.
   48. The NeverEnding Torii (oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh) Posted: November 23, 2011 at 08:03 AM (#4000008)
OK, so you've got a Terry Schiavo situation. Husband 1 wants to pull the plug. Husband 2 does not. How is that decided?


Find out next fall on FOX!
   49. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM (#4000024)
mind you I agree that Verlander does deserve a vote, but this stupid ass argument about number of people faced compared to oppostion plate appearances needs to be ended before someone actually takes this stupid #### seriously.

I was offering a small incremental step to the author on the road to thinking ... with a hoped-for tinge of sarcasm. Sorry to have riled you up.
   50. CrosbyBird Posted: November 23, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#4000195)
Is it behavior, or simply setting the terms of a government-sanctioned contract?There's nothing stopping a trio from living as husband and wife, plus 1.

I don't think the government should be sanctioning one type of union (assuming consent, of course) over another.
   51. SoSH U at work Posted: November 23, 2011 at 05:38 PM (#4000206)
I don't think the government should be sanctioning one type of union (assuming consent, of course) over another.


That's a perfectly reasonable position.

But unions, at the moment, carry benefits, both from the government and the private sector, and I'm not sure "I want them also" is a terribly compelling reason to grant them.

There's an obvious legal reason to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples - otherwise you're denying a basic right to a subset of the population - homosexuals.

I don't think number, however, is a protected group. I don't see a logical argument that marriage rights must be extended to three or more people because it exists for two people. The gay man can point to his heterosexual comrade and claim that gent is being given access to a right that is being denied to him. The same parallel does not exist, at least in my eyes, to the trio.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I'm just not seeing the straight parallel between extending marriage to same-sex couples and doing the same for multi-partner relationships.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2021 LCS OMNICHATTER!
(294 - 10:33pm, Oct 18)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogMLB in talks to launch nationwide streaming service for home games without cable TV
(20 - 9:55pm, Oct 18)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogBaseball America: Was The 2020 Rule 5 MLB Draft The Best Of The 21st Century?
(9 - 9:37pm, Oct 18)
Last: 57i66135 right now is attacking rest

NewsblogDodgers Albert Pujols Hits the COVID-19 Injured List
(196 - 9:32pm, Oct 18)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogThe fans' way at Fenway: loud, louder, loudest
(26 - 9:21pm, Oct 18)
Last: crict

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(69 - 8:25pm, Oct 18)
Last: Hombre Brotani

NewsblogArizona Fall League experiments gone awry, plus notes on Spencer Torkelson, Brett Baty and more: Keith Law
(15 - 7:42pm, Oct 18)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOne of best ever? Astros INF has a case
(26 - 7:40pm, Oct 18)
Last: Walt Davis

Sox TherapyThe Boston Red Sox Will Play for the Pennant
(115 - 7:02pm, Oct 18)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(428 - 5:29pm, Oct 18)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogWhere do the 107-win Giants go from here after early postseason exit?
(3 - 5:06pm, Oct 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogA’s VP Billy Beane tips his hand about joining Mets front office
(6 - 3:02pm, Oct 18)
Last: VCar

NewsblogSources: New York Yankees shake up staff under Aaron Boone, won't renew contracts of hitting coach Marcus Thames, 3B coach Phil Nevin
(8 - 1:29pm, Oct 18)
Last: weiss-man

NewsblogMike Shildt out as St. Louis Cardinals manager, per report
(55 - 1:24pm, Oct 18)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogMajor League Baseball to require teams to provide housing for minor league players starting in 2022
(4 - 10:47am, Oct 18)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

Page rendered in 0.4452 seconds
48 querie(s) executed