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

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Padres players Fernando Tatis Jr., Wil Myers test positive for COVID-19, at least 3 other players out for contact tracing

The San Diego Padres announced a roster move on Tuesday before their game in Colorado due to “health and safety protocols.” And later during the game, two players were removed.

Earlier in the day, it was announced that star shortstop, Fernando Tatis Jr. along with Jurickson Profar and Jorge Mateo all were placed on the injured list.

Padres manager Jayce Tingler announced that Tatis Jr. had tested positive for COVID-19 saying he was currently asymptomatic. Profar and Mateo were both close contacts.

During Tuesday’s game against the Colorado Rockies, players Wil Myers and Eric Hosmer were removed and it was later confirmed by Tingler that Myers tested positive for COVID-19 and Hosmer was removed for contact tracing.

No additional details were available and no timetable was given for when any of the players may be available to return to action.

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: May 12, 2021 at 10:52 AM | 46 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: coronavirus, padres

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. Adam Starblind Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:06 AM (#6018522)
They should have traded him for Syndergaard when they had the chance.
   2. Tom Nawrocki Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:23 AM (#6018531)
They're probably fortunate that they have a doubleheader with the Rockies, which means they got to call up an extra player for the day, but they'll probably have to make other roster moves as well. Near as I can tell, they have nine position players available right now.
   3. The Duke Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:32 AM (#6018534)
Cards get the Padres on Friday so they will benefit from a team that is decimated. They are playing a brewers team right now that is just recovering from Covid. It’s a weird year. Luck of the draw may have a big impact this year
   4. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:40 AM (#6018538)
Near as I can tell, they have nine position players available right now.
And Cronenworth is six of them.
   5. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: May 12, 2021 at 01:07 PM (#6018554)
Good grief. Were these guys not vaccinated?
   6. vortex of dissipation Posted: May 12, 2021 at 01:47 PM (#6018566)
Good grief. Were these guys not vaccinated?


from mlb.com:

As per team policy, Tingler did not divulge whether any of the affected players have been vaccinated.
   7. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 12, 2021 at 02:56 PM (#6018580)
If a star player refuses to get vaccinated and misses time, the team should have every right to fine him (suspension would obviously be counterproductive).
   8. stanmvp48 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 03:10 PM (#6018584)
Quite a lineup somebody named tusupita Marcano
   9. Tom Nawrocki Posted: May 12, 2021 at 03:18 PM (#6018587)
At least for Game One, Padres have a three-man bench, including John Andreoli, a 31-year-old who last played in the majors for the Orioles in 2018, and Patrick Kivelhan, a 31-year-old who last played in the majors for Arizona in 2018.

Starting lineup includes Marcano, who has 15 career ABs, Brian Grady, who has 48 career ABs, and Ha-seong Kim, who has 68 career ABs. So against the Rockies, this should be a pretty even fight.
   10. Jack Sommers Posted: May 12, 2021 at 03:25 PM (#6018591)
Quite a lot of teams are unable to reach 85% vaccinated Tier 1 personnel

Recently Merrill Kelly, who was briefly on IL due to contact tracing, but not a positive test, revealed that he had not been vaccinated. I've heard there are at least 9-12 players and/or coaches on the D-backs that are not vaccinated.



   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 12, 2021 at 03:34 PM (#6018594)
Good grief. Were these guys not vaccinated?

You can be vaccinated and still get COVID, you just won't get that sick.
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 12, 2021 at 04:22 PM (#6018605)

You can be vaccinated and still get COVID, you just won't get that sick.


Yeah, the trials/studies seem to indicate that very very few vaccinated people have serious cases of COVID or require hospitalization. But if people were having asymptomatic cases and not going in for tests, we wouldn't necessarily know about that (it does reduce the risk of transmission, but not to zero).

Sports teams are actually good to study because everybody is getting tested regularly, regardless of symptoms. Similar to how they studied post-COVID heart issues in pro/college athletes, because all the players who contracted COVID were getting regular heart exams to make sure they were fit to play afterwards.
   13. The Mighty Quintana Posted: May 12, 2021 at 04:32 PM (#6018609)
You're not fully vaccinated till 10 days after you get the second Pfizer shot. The Moderna should be effective immediately after 2nd shot.
   14. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: May 12, 2021 at 05:21 PM (#6018618)
This just in: COVID is still a thing.
   15. salvomania Posted: May 12, 2021 at 06:51 PM (#6018629)
In the US so far a number thrown out is out of 77 million vaccinated people, 5,800 subsequently tested positive. I assume many more were positive at some point but were asymptomatic and were never tested, so we'll never know.

So that is 0.0075 percent (not "decimal percentage" but %) that we know of, or 1 out of 13,000 vaccinated people subsequently test positive.

I think the odds are much more likely that the folks testing positive now are from the "not vaccinated" group, and not the vaccinated group.

I don't want to tell anyone what to do, but I think there's a good chance you're either ignorant, or a selfish a**hole (or both) if you don't get a vaccine.

   16. T.J. Posted: May 12, 2021 at 07:37 PM (#6018631)
I don't want to tell anyone what to do, but I think there's a good chance you're either ignorant, or a selfish a**hole (or both) if you don't get a vaccine.
I like the cut of your jib.
   17. baerga1 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 07:42 PM (#6018632)
Just a good chance?

I would say that refraining from getting a vaccine is one of the most immoral things a person can possibly do right now (and i would not categorize myself as a Covid alarmist, nor a moralist!). Perhaps about equal to randomly beating the crap out of an old woman on the sidewalk, completely unprovoked, such that she needs to go to the hospital and has a small-but-significant chance of serious internal hemorrhage and death. It would take some fancy math, but non-vaccination might be even worse than that.

Now, that is just a results-based moral analysis. From a moral responsibility standpoint there are undoubtedly some people that are simply too ignorant and/or stupid to assess the situation and so have minimal moral culpability. For those who have no such excuse, it is likely they will never make a worse moral decision in their entire lives.

Just my opinion, of course..
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 12, 2021 at 08:17 PM (#6018635)
I would say that refraining from getting a vaccine is one of the most immoral things a person can possibly do right now (and i would not categorize myself as a Covid alarmist, nor a moralist!). Perhaps about equal to randomly beating the crap out of an old woman on the sidewalk, completely unprovoked, such that she needs to go to the hospital and has a small-but-significant chance of serious internal hemorrhage and death. It would take some fancy math, but non-vaccination might be even worse than that.

How does that math work? Now that the vaccine is available to everyone, the only people you are putting at risk are others who have chosen not to get vaccinated.

Not to mention that not taken an action that you have no obligation to take can never be immoral, much less equivalent to committing actual bodily harm to an innocent.
   19. baerga1 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 08:45 PM (#6018638)
Some of those people who you are putting at risk have compromised immune systems. Still others are those I mention who simply lack the intellectual firepower to overcome vaccine hesitancy and are therefore vulnerable (responsibility in those cases is debatable).

Also, the great irony of those who choose not to get vaccinated because they think they are harmful (and even plead with friends/family not to get vaccinated themselves) is that they are likely increasing the total number of vaccines that will need to be taken because they are inhibiting herd immunity, meaning years if not decades of responsible people taking annual booster shots and, yes, many people dying over those years and decades.

It can also be said that choosing not to get vaccinated contributes to the culture of vaccine hesitancy. Those who actively proselytize about it contribute even more to this effect.


Not to mention that not taken an action that you have no obligation to take can never be immoral


wha?
   20. Walt Davis Posted: May 12, 2021 at 09:02 PM (#6018639)
Perhaps about equal to

If we're going for strained analogies, how about something a bit less graphic and willful. How about, say, not getting vaxed = driving drunk. And sure, most of the red lights you run, slow reactions you have or bad decisions you make will end up hurting nobody but eventually a lot of people will die unnecessarily, including some of the drunk drivers.

And yes #19, I wonder how Snapper defines "obligation" there.

And sure Snapper, the folks who are almost never out and about at 2 am are virtually immune from getting killed by a drunk driver** so only fellow night owls are at risk and nobody forced them onto the roads at 2 am.

** Given the number of times I've been stopped for a "random" breath test in the morning, this may not apply in Australia.
   21. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: May 12, 2021 at 09:12 PM (#6018643)
Perhaps about equal to randomly beating the crap out of an old woman on the sidewalk, completely unprovoked, such that she needs to go to the hospital and has a small-but-significant chance of serious internal hemorrhage and death.


I know you said "completely unprovoked," but does that include her being a Yankees fan?
   22. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: May 12, 2021 at 09:15 PM (#6018644)
Not to mention that not taken an action that you have no obligation to take can never be immoral

wha?


Did anyone in the Netherlands* have an obligation to, like, shelter the Anne Franks of the world back during the late unpleasantness?

*I just finished reading this -- worth checking out of the library but not buying, considering not only some occasionally inelegant writing & especially punctuation but also fairly frequent citing of Wikipedia as a source in the footnotes, which ... I mean ... the author conducted interviews & overseas archival research, so ... what ... why?
   23. baerga1 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 09:58 PM (#6018650)
Yeah, Walt, drunk driving is a better analogy.

If he means "moral obligation" then it's a truism, if he means "legal obligation" then it's merely indefensible.
   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 12, 2021 at 10:36 PM (#6018656)
Some of those people who you are putting at risk have compromised immune systems. Still others are those I mention who simply lack the intellectual firepower to overcome vaccine hesitancy and are therefore vulnerable (responsibility in those cases is debatable).

Also, the great irony of those who choose not to get vaccinated because they think they are harmful (and even plead with friends/family not to get vaccinated themselves) is that they are likely increasing the total number of vaccines that will need to be taken because they are inhibiting herd immunity, meaning years if not decades of responsible people taking annual booster shots and, yes, many people dying over those years and decades.

It can also be said that choosing not to get vaccinated contributes to the culture of vaccine hesitancy. Those who actively proselytize about it contribute even more to this effect.


I'm vaccinated. I'd advise everyone except the very young to get vaccinated (I think the minimal risk to children, and relative lack of testing/knowledge of vaccine effects merits caution for those under 21). I think anyone not getting vaccinated takes the risk on themselves. I won't vilify them for their choice, just like I don't vilify people who won't wear seatbelts.


If he means "moral obligation" then it's a truism, if he means "legal obligation" then it's merely indefensible.


We all could do lots of things that might save someone else's life. You could never drive more than 25 MPH, or not drive at all. You could take your kids' college funds and give them to Food for the Poor, or Save the Children. An extra $250,000 spent on food and medication would almost certainly save multiple lives.

Since you have no obligation (moral, ethical or legal) to do any of those things, you can't be called immoral for not doing them.

   25. baerga1 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:12 PM (#6018661)
Since you have no obligation (moral, ethical or legal) to do any of those things, you can't be called immoral for not doing them.


textbook
   26. baerga1 Posted: May 12, 2021 at 11:49 PM (#6018662)
I realize that link is a little bit unfair, because you are making some attempt at supporting the lack of moral obligation, but the examples you use are hardly comparable. Not wearing a seatbelt is unlikely to kill anybody but you. Sure, giving away 250k to poor people would do more good than spending it on your kids from a utilitarian point of view, and some moral philosophers (Singer, most notably) would say that places a moral obligation on you. I do not agree with that. Regardless of your stance on utilitarianism, though, the fact is that losing 250k is a large cost to you. Making one or two clinic appointments and at worst missing a day of work is not a significant cost for 90% of people. The whole point here is that the cost of getting vaccinated is extremely low (unlike giving large sums to charity) and the benefits to others is clearly very large (unlike not wearing a seatbelt). And furthermore, the reasoning behind not getting vaccinated ranges from ignorant to nonsensical to delusional to self-absorbed. All of that adds up to highly immoral action.
   27. Jobu is silent on the changeup Posted: May 13, 2021 at 07:09 AM (#6018668)
The guy who sits next to me at work thinks we need to have a revolution because he had to wear a mask while bowling.

We're talking about an educated man (engineer) who just spent 2 weeks in a rented multi-million dollar home playing golf every day, and he spends a disturbing amount of his time telling everybody how oppressed he is.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 09:20 AM (#6018672)
All of that adds up to highly immoral action.

I'll just say this. Failing to take an altruistic action, even if the cost is low, isn't immoral. Do you think everyone who doesn't donate blood regularly is highly immoral? Do you think everyone who drives over 55 MPH is highly immoral?
   29. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 13, 2021 at 09:28 AM (#6018673)
I'll just say this. Failing to take an altruistic action, even if the cost is low, isn't immoral. Do you think everyone who doesn't donate blood regularly is highly immoral? Do you think everyone who drives over 55 MPH is highly immoral?


Ever? What about failing to throw a drowning man a life ring when you are the only other person around?
   30. filihok Posted: May 13, 2021 at 09:47 AM (#6018674)
What about failing to throw a drowning man a life ring when you are the only other person around?

What about failing to let a homeless person live in your spare bedroom?

I agree that these two situations feel different, but why? And does that difference matter?

Is it an acute situation vs a chronic one?
Is it the level of involvement?
Is it simply societal?
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 10:03 AM (#6018676)
Ever? What about failing to throw a drowning man a life ring when you are the only other person around?

The cost there is so low that I agree there is a duty to act. It would absolutely not be immoral to decline to go in after him, even if you were a good swimmer.

What about failing to let a homeless person live in your spare bedroom?

I agree that these two situations feel different, but why? And does that difference matter?

Is it an acute situation vs a chronic one?
Is it the level of involvement?
Is it simply societal?


Excellent observation. I think it has to do with the potential risk or cost to the altruist.

   32. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 11:43 AM (#6018686)
I'll just say this. Failing to take an altruistic action, even if the cost is low, isn't immoral. Do you think everyone who doesn't donate blood regularly is highly immoral? Do you think everyone who drives over 55 MPH is highly immoral?

I wouldn't call it "highly" immoral, but a little bit? Yeah, if you're one of those people for whom giving blood is easy* and you still don't do it. I admit that I don't do it often enough, and I think it's ok to admit that we're not perfect.

Not getting vaccinated when you can is immoral, in my opinion. It's relatively low on the list (contrary to what #17 wrote, it's nowhere near as bad as beating an elderly person on the sidewalk. Intentionally infecting an elderly person with COVID would be morally equivalent to assaulting them). It's immoral when people don't get themselves or their kids vaccinated for measles and other such diseases, because there are people who are immunocompromised and can't get vaccinated and you're putting those people at risk. Not getting the COVID vaccine probably isn't as bad as that, because my understanding is that measles is much worse for young children than COVID, and young children are a large portion of the population who can't get vaccinated. But you should still get it, even if you're a young person.

* I know people who have issues with blood/needles and basically pass out whenever they have blood drawn.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 01:58 PM (#6018710)
I wouldn't call it "highly" immoral, but a little bit? Yeah, if you're one of those people for whom giving blood is easy* and you still don't do it. I admit that I don't do it often enough, and I think it's ok to admit that we're not perfect.

Certainly agree that it's better to do these altruistic things rather than not, and all of us are far from perfect. I think we have different definitions of "immoral". To me immoral means actively bad, not just not as good as we could be.
   34. sunday silence (again) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 08:10 PM (#6018769)

In the US so far a number thrown out is out of 77 million vaccinated people, 5,800 subsequently tested positive.


Im trying to grasp what the terms they throw out there mean. They say with the Pfizer after one vaccination you are 85% resistant or some such. Googling that seems to mean that of the people (vaccinated and unvaccinated) the vaccinated were 85% less likely to come down with Covid than the unvacc. and the second one makes you something like 95% (i think this number has changed a few times)

Which is good of course. But the numbers you put up there sound like you are far far less likely to get covid after vaccination.

So what am I missing. Is it that the 85% refers to people who show any sign of covid but for far more serious cases the resist number is far higher/better?
   35. sunday silence (again) Posted: May 13, 2021 at 08:11 PM (#6018770)
I think Snapper has the far better argument here in terms of morality.
   36. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: May 14, 2021 at 12:36 AM (#6018795)
Failing to take an altruistic action, even if the cost is low, isn't immoral.

To me immoral means actively bad, not just not as good as we could be.


Snapper, I assume I'm not understanding you. I'm walking down the street, seven feet behind some guy I don't know, when his wallet falls out of his back pocket. I see this happen and recognize that he is unaware.

To me, that's when I get the man's attention, pick it up, and hand it to him. The way your words read to me, if I did nothing such inaction is not immoral. Is that correct? Would you mind explaining more.
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 14, 2021 at 09:25 AM (#6018817)

Snapper, I assume I'm not understanding you. I'm walking down the street, seven feet behind some guy I don't know, when his wallet falls out of his back pocket. I see this happen and recognize that he is unaware.

To me, that's when I get the man's attention, pick it up, and hand it to him. The way your words read to me, if I did nothing such inaction is not immoral. Is that correct? Would you mind explaining more.


I would say as the cost of doing good approaches zero, as in your example, failing to do good becomes immoral. Add any significant burden though, and then I would say it is not immoral.

Let's say you saw the guys drop his wallet from 50 feet away, and by the time you got there, he was already on the cross-town bus and two blocks away. It would be a nice thing to pick up his wallet and contact him, but not doing so wouldn't be an immoral act. Picking up his wallet and keeping the money is an immoral act.

Or let's say the guy dropped a money clip instead, and is a 100 feet ahead of you and moving fast. Do you really have to run him down to avoid being immoral?
   38. jmurph Posted: May 14, 2021 at 09:43 AM (#6018821)
Im trying to grasp what the terms they throw out there mean. They say with the Pfizer after one vaccination you are 85% resistant or some such. Googling that seems to mean that of the people (vaccinated and unvaccinated) the vaccinated were 85% less likely to come down with Covid than the unvacc. and the second one makes you something like 95% (i think this number has changed a few times)

Which is good of course. But the numbers you put up there sound like you are far far less likely to get covid after vaccination.

So what am I missing. Is it that the 85% refers to people who show any sign of covid but for far more serious cases the resist number is far higher/better?

Agree that some of the terminology has been confusing throughout the whole process. The way that this all clicked for me is to keep in mind that UNvaccinated people are not definitely going to get it. So if a vaccinated person is, for example, 95% less likely to get it than an unvaccinated person, who is also not particularly likely to get it, then the chances that the vaccinated person will get it are not 5% but are instead vanishingly small.
   39. Eddo Posted: May 14, 2021 at 10:10 AM (#6018822)
Agree that some of the terminology has been confusing throughout the whole process. The way that this all clicked for me is to keep in mind that UNvaccinated people are not definitely going to get it. So if a vaccinated person is, for example, 95% less likely to get it than an unvaccinated person, who is also not particularly likely to get it, then the chances that the vaccinated person will get it are not 5% but are instead vanishingly small.

I agree the terminology - and the way it's reported - is confusing. My interpretation (as a layman who has tried to read various sources without making it too time-consuming), there's also degrees of "getting it". The fact that, even while unvaccinated, it's fairly likely that you can be infected but not show symptoms, seems to imply that more people "get it" than we (and they) realize. The percent chance of getting infected with COVID-19 if you are exposed seems to be somewhere in the 30-70% range. So even with 95% reduction in that, you still have something like a 2-4% chance of getting infected if you are exposed. That's not vanishingly small, which is why we're probably going to keep seeing stories about guys like Gleyber Torres, who have been vaccinated (and had COVID-19 already) and still test positive.

But there's also the impact of vaccines on how likely you are to actually suffer from COVID-19, or worst case, die. The vaccines seem to be exceptionally good at preventing death and serious illness, even if you still have a reasonable chance of getting infected. It will be interesting to see if any of the stories of athletes testing positive (which we'll hear about, since there are still regular tests performed on them) also come with them being symptomatic or actually suffering from it (like some players, e.g. Yoan Moncada or Cam Newton, definitely did).
   40. jmurph Posted: May 14, 2021 at 10:23 AM (#6018824)
So even with 95% reduction in that, you still have something like a 2-4% chance of getting infected if you are exposed. That's not vanishingly small, which is why we're probably going to keep seeing stories about guys like Gleyber Torres, who have been vaccinated (and had COVID-19 already) and still test positive.

Fair point but I do sort of consider it vanishingly small! Especially combined with any kind of reasonable, mild precautions.

EDIT: Yes and I think your second paragraph is very important, I just keep harping on the first one (about reducing the chance of infection) because it is being constantly misunderstood and misstated in lots of places.
   41. Eddo Posted: May 14, 2021 at 10:33 AM (#6018828)
Fair point but I do sort of consider it vanishingly small! Especially combined with any kind of reasonable, mild precautions.

EDIT: Yes and I think your second paragraph is very important, I just keep harping on the first one (about reducing the chance of infection) because it is being constantly misunderstood and misstated in lots of places.

That's fair, too - I think the combination does result in a "vanishingly small" chance of "getting it", in the sense that you will actually feel sick. And if we can get enough people to get the vaccine, even if some "have" it, but almost no one actually gets seriously ill (or dies) - that is what we're striving for.
   42. Hank Gillette Posted: May 14, 2021 at 04:33 PM (#6018869)
You're not fully vaccinated till 10 days after you get the second Pfizer shot. The Moderna should be effective immediately after 2nd shot.


Where did you hear or read this? The CDC says that you are not fully vaccinated until two weeks after your second Moderna shot, and I have read other sources that say it is three weeks.
   43. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: May 15, 2021 at 01:05 AM (#6018914)
Snapper: I'm unable to give a proper response right now, but thank you for answering my request for additional insights into your thinking.
   44. baerga1 Posted: May 15, 2021 at 10:54 AM (#6018923)
I would say as the cost of doing good approaches zero, as in your example, failing to do good becomes immoral.


Well I certainly agree with you there. But as in most decision calculations, the magnitude of the benefit matters.

Do you think driving drunk is not immoral? Avoiding it certainly is a burden: either having significantly less fun, or having to plan and maybe even spending dozens of extra dollars. All that to avoid a mere statistical uptick in the probability of hurting or killing someone!
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM (#6018929)

Well I certainly agree with you there. But as in most decision calculations, the magnitude of the benefit matters.

Do you think driving drunk is not immoral? Avoiding it certainly is a burden: either having significantly less fun, or having to plan and maybe even spending dozens of extra dollars. All that to avoid a mere statistical uptick in the probability of hurting or killing someone!


That's actively doing something, as opposed to not doing something. I think the bar is higher for action rather than inaction.

Example, you see two guys fighting over a knife, you think you know who was the attacker, so you intervene. You're wrong and the victim end up getting killed. I would say you bear some moral responsibility for his death, by inadvertently helping his attacker.

On the other hand, if you don't get involved in the knife fight (you just step away and call police say), and the victim dies, you have no moral responsibility for his death.
   46. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: May 15, 2021 at 11:53 PM (#6019007)
Thanks again, Snapper. Of course, as you noted, there are limitations to what can be reasonably expected from someone to achieve moral behavior. Where the exact line is on reasonable... I don't know. But how you've described moral/immoral feels a little too at odds with the old cliché that "Actions speak louder than words," because, well, it seems like moral thought without moral behavior doesn't much make for actual morality.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBob Uecker Day cause for 50th celebration
(1 - 11:44pm, Sep 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogVaxed, waxed, and ready for the WEEKEND OMNICHATTER!, for September 24-26, 2021
(139 - 11:42pm, Sep 26)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Sox TherapyOK, Let’s Play Scenarios
(9 - 11:23pm, Sep 26)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogThe 3,000 Hit Club Is Closed for Maintenance
(39 - 11:23pm, Sep 26)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Sox TherapyIt's A Sprint, Not A Marathon
(70 - 11:18pm, Sep 26)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(14189 - 11:10pm, Sep 26)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(4616 - 10:55pm, Sep 26)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogMullins 1st Oriole in 30-30 club: 'It's surreal'
(20 - 10:41pm, Sep 26)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogChicago Cubs plan to be 'really active" in MLB free agency, says team president Jed Hoyer
(10 - 9:59pm, Sep 26)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(288 - 4:59pm, Sep 26)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogHyde to return as O's skipper in 2022
(2 - 3:35pm, Sep 26)
Last: Jack Keefe

NewsblogCarlos Gomez Officially Announces Retirement
(8 - 3:29pm, Sep 26)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Newsblog14 wins in a row! Cards tie 1935 club record
(9 - 2:32pm, Sep 26)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogThey could be ROY vote-getters -- again
(13 - 2:46am, Sep 26)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT - August/September 2021 College Football thread
(251 - 10:43pm, Sep 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

Page rendered in 0.5146 seconds
48 querie(s) executed