Beyond the Box Score: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: The USA TODAY/Bloody Elbow Top 50 MMA Fights Ever, I


spread the word

Verducci Effect Update: 7 Risky Pitchers for 2009

“It's like training for a marathon. You need to build stamina incrementally. The unofficial industry standard is that no young pitcher should throw more than 30 more innings than he did the previous season. It's a general rule of thumb, and one I've been tracking for about a decade. When teams violate the incremental safeguard, it's amazing how often they pay for it.”

So wrote Tom Verducci last February, illustrating what he called the “Year After Effect,” but has since gained popularity as the “Verducci Effect.” Let’s start by looking at the seven players that Verducci identified as being particularly risky for the 2008 season, and then let’s try to identify some risky players for 2009.

Here are the pitchers that Tom Verducci listed as being possible victims of the so-called Verducci Effect in 2008:

Ian Kennedy
Fausto Carmona
Ubaldo Jimenez
Tom Gorzelanny
Dustin McGowan
Chad Gaudin
Yovani Gallardo

Wow – pretty convincing evidence for this theory. Kennedy was awful at the major league level; Carmona was hurt for much of the year and ineffective when healthy; Gorzelanny’s ERA went up nearly three full runs; Gallardo got hurt and missed most of the season (although this is unfair, as his injury was a fluke unrelated to his shoulder or arm).

Jimenez defied the Verducci Effect, pitching nearly 200 innings and showing tremendous improvement. Gaudin pitched primarily out of the bullpen and maintained his production. However, five of the seven players that Verducci identified as being particularly risky were either hurt or very ineffective in 2008.

Of course, caveats abound: there is no control study, and we know that pitchers – especially those under 25 – are inherently risky, not just pitchers who have had big innings increases. Furthermore, this is a very selective sample: in order to accumulate a large increase in innings, you have to be pretty effective – perhaps even more effective than your “true ability,” thus making regression more likely. Still, the results are convincing, and Verducci writes of similar results from past seasons as well.

So what about 2009? Well, we can identify seven pitchers once again who may be at increased risk due to the so-called Verducci Effect.

Star-divide

Jon Lester (162 IP last year, 237 this year – 76 inning increase). Lester’s situation is certainly unique: he has progressed nicely in his recovery from cancer, and seemed to gain strength as the season progressed. I’d subjectively guess that Lester is less likely to be effected by the innings increase than another pitcher, simply due to Lester’s conditioning program that allowed him to re-gain his strength (and then some) after cancer. I have also full faith in the Red Sox’s ability to handle him appropriately. Still, a 76 inning increase is enormous, and probably makes Lester a risk.

Cole Hamels (190 IP last year, 262 this year – 72 inning increase). Hamels pitched 35 innings in the postseason this year after 227 regular season innings. Hamels had shed his tag of being injury prone, but he’s still only 24 years old, and a 72 inning increase is huge.

Chad Billingsley (147 IP last year, 212 this year – 65 inning increase). Billingsley’s innings have been steadily increased for several years now, but a 65 inning increase is enormous. Billingsley is big and athletic and has no history of injury, but it still a risk for 2009.

John Danks (139 IP last year, 195 this year -56 inning increase) – Danks was very effective in 2008, thanks in no small part to the introduction of the patented Cooper Cutter. However, he also saw a huge jump in his innings pitched, leading him to be pretty risky for next season.

Mike Pelfrey (146 IP last year, 200 this year – 54 inning increase). Pelfrey is a prime candidate to be a victim of the Verducci Effect. I can’t fault the Mets for the way they used him in 2008, since they were in a heated playoff race and Pelfrey was very effective. However, he threw many more innings than he ever had, making it fairly likely that Pelfrey will experience an injury and/or ineffectiveness in 2009. It’s far from a certainty, but if I was a Mets fan, I’d be very worried.

Tim Lincecum (177 IP last year, 226 this year – 49 inning increase). Yes, we all understand that Lincecum is a freak of nature – even by major league pitchers’ standards. Still, a 49 inning increase is nothing to sneeze at, especially in a young pitcher. I personally think he’s likely to be effective once again in 2009, but the innings increase is noteworthy nonetheless.

Jair Jurrjens (142 IP last year, 188 this year – 46 inning increase). Jurrjens’s innings increase isn’t quite as large as some of the other players on this list, but it still well exceeds the 30-IP threshold. Although he was a pleasant surprise for the Braves in 2008, Jurrjens may experience injury and/or regression in 2009.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments | Share on Facebook Digg!

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Beyond the Box Score

Comments

Display:

What about Jonathan Sanchez?

We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth

by oldjacket on Jan 5, 2009 8:44 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sanchez!

I’m a huge Jonathan Sanchez fan.

And as much as it pains me to say this…you’re right. Sanchez is very, very risky for 09 – he pitched only 75 innings in 07, and then more than doubled that number to 158 in 08.

I still think he’s going to be very good, but you make an excellent point.

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 9:42 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think he’s a worse injury risk than Lincecum. When he gets tired, his mechanics go all to hell.

But when he’s on and managed correctly, whew! Durty is filthy.

We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth

by oldjacket on Jan 5, 2009 10:40 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is a good point.

Sanchez was a LOT worse as he threw more pitches this season. I think this is correctable, but it’s certainly a flaw, and it’s also something that makes him more risky under the Verducci Effect as well.

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 10:57 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Pelfrey

The reason to worry about Pelfrey is that there is no evidence that the underlying cause of his extra innings was addressed.

If it is addressed, Cole Hamels’s innings will revert more toward the mean. But that’s not the way to bet.

Someone needs to do an analysis specifically of the treatment of pitchers since the “six-year rule” went into effect.

by klhoughton on Jan 5, 2009 9:09 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wait...

By underlying cause, you mean the bullpen, right? Because that WAS addressed.

by squid92 on Jan 5, 2009 10:18 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What about Rays' pitchers?

They’re all really young and after the playoffs, I remember reading an article about the Verducci Effect that listed Matt Garza (among other Rays’ pitchers) as someone to watch for a potential fall off.

Then again, the Rays seem to be aware of this and plan to strictly limit how much their pitchers throw prior to spring training and in spring training. So who knows.

"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige

by Steve Slowinski on Jan 5, 2009 9:23 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rays.

Here are the amount of innings the Rays pitchers pitched in 07 and 08 (including postseason):

Garza: 175 in 07; 209 in 08 (34 inning increase)
Kazmir: 206 in 07; 189 in 08 (17 inning DEcrease)
Sonnanstine: 201 in 07; 210 in 08 (9 inning increase)
Shields 215 in 07; 240 in 08 (25 inning increase – incidentally, Shields pitched the EXACT same amount of innings in the regular season both years)

Kazmir and Sonnanstine are not at risk whatsoever. Shields is somewhat, but he’s proven the ability to throw many innings and his increase wasn’t even 30 innings. Garza is perhaps more risky, but a 34-inning increase isn’t HUGE and I’m sure the Rays are well aware of Garza’s risk and will manage it appropriately.

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 9:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

what are your thoughts on the efficacy of weighting minor league and major league innings equally for this purpose?

Griffey suffered the injury early in the season with the Reds when he tripped over a misplaced foot locker in the Reds' clubhouse.

by larry on Jan 5, 2009 9:49 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My personal opinion

Is that an inning is an inning, period, no matter at what level it is pitched.

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 10:12 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

even collegiate?

We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth

by oldjacket on Jan 5, 2009 12:10 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Why not?

Not saying no, but legitimately asking why not…

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 12:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, I can’t find the article, but I remember Will Carroll saying he had studied it and finding that if the pitcher hadn’t actually suffered an injury in college then his collegiate workload seemed to have to effect on his injury risk.

Apart from that, you aren’t going to need to throw a lot of breaking pitches to get most college hitters out, if you’re the kind of guy that goes on to the pros. Probably don’t need your best fastball for most hitters either.

We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth

by oldjacket on Jan 5, 2009 12:20 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are all innings created equal?

Peter,

As a devot Mets fan, I can only comment on Pelfrey, but certainly the theory behind my argument applies to everyone. With regard to your post, I think it is more prudent to look at Pelfrey’s increase in pitches thrown, as opposed to IP. Why? Because in Mike’s case, he seemed to “figure it all out” in 2008, and became a far better pitcher. In ‘07, Mike would throw 100 pitches inside 5-6 innings, whereas last year, he threw those same 100 pitches in 7,8 and even 9 innings pitched. Furthermore, he had to work harder for those innings in 2007 where he was in many more jams as opposed to 2008. I believe that this shows that not all innings are created equal. Pelfrey was certainly pushed harder last season than in years past, but I think that in his case, the increase in IP isn’t the best way to measure the workload. Of course its speculation, and we will see what happens in the coming season

by Ravi33 on Jan 5, 2009 1:41 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Good Point

It would be interesting to look at total pitch counts rather than innings. A 100-pitch five inning start should be counted the same as a 100-pitch complete game.

by onholliday on Jan 5, 2009 2:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

is a pitch or so per inning really that much of a difference?

that’s what we’re talking about here with pelfrey. i guess maybe but i’m not sure it adds all that much, especially when it’s far easier at this point to calculate innings instead of pitches – especially w/r/t minor league numbers.

and people have attempted to measure “easy” v. “hard” innings.

That makes you a blight on the face of the American sports landscape. It makes Jeffrey Loria an abomination as an owner. It does not, I should emphasize, reflect upon Larry Beinfest or the baseball operations staff, who have done yeoman's work under awful circumstances. That doesn't mean that the franchise should continue to exist though, because it exists solely and entirely to steal taxpayer money.

by larry on Jan 5, 2009 2:17 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Larry – I agree with you that it is far easier to calculate IP than pitches thrown, which is why Verducci’s metric of choice is IP. However, that just shows that the 30 IP increase, while a good guide, isn’t necessarily 100% accurate.

But referring to your comment, is a 15 pitch inning the same as a 30 pitch inning? Obviously they aren’t, but we don’t yet know if its a 1-1 ratio, where a 30 pitch inning equals two 15 pitch innings, In my opinion, it is defintly something to think about.

by Ravi33 on Jan 5, 2009 2:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i'd certainly concede that. which was the point i was making in the final sentence of my post.

but does pitches thrown actually measure what you’re looking for? i’m thinking that’s not going to do it either.

That makes you a blight on the face of the American sports landscape. It makes Jeffrey Loria an abomination as an owner. It does not, I should emphasize, reflect upon Larry Beinfest or the baseball operations staff, who have done yeoman's work under awful circumstances. That doesn't mean that the franchise should continue to exist though, because it exists solely and entirely to steal taxpayer money.

by larry on Jan 5, 2009 2:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well I’m not sure exactly at what we are looking for, but since Verducci’s theory revolves around the workload of a pitcher, pitches thrown is much more precise than IP, due some of the variables I mentioned in my first comment.

It certainly won’t be a perfect indicator of future health, but utilizing pitches thrown will likely yield more accurate predictions.

by Ravi33 on Jan 5, 2009 3:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i dunno if i necessarily agree with that premise.

see below re: sky’s point about reliever innings v. starter innings for one reason. at first blush, i’d say both would yield similar predictions. i think you’d have to get more subjective and nuanced, such as something more along the lines of “easy” or “hard” innings/outings/etc. to get more accuracy than you’d otherwise get via counting stats.

That makes you a blight on the face of the American sports landscape. It makes Jeffrey Loria an abomination as an owner. It does not, I should emphasize, reflect upon Larry Beinfest or the baseball operations staff, who have done yeoman's work under awful circumstances. That doesn't mean that the franchise should continue to exist though, because it exists solely and entirely to steal taxpayer money.

by larry on Jan 5, 2009 3:12 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fair enough….Verducci’s hypothesis is far from an exact theory, due to all the variables you mentioned. Basically, my whole point is that a) Verducci’s theory should be taken with a grain of salt, and that b) Pitches thrown would be a better measure than IP, but it is still not an 100% accurate predictor of future injury.

by Ravi33 on Jan 5, 2009 3:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Fantastic point.

Well said and well thought-out.

by Peter Bendix on Jan 5, 2009 2:53 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So, where can we find this stat?

Does anyone know of a source that lists the stat “Total Number of Pitches”?

by WhatsYourName? on Jan 18, 2009 1:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I also think we need a good way to convert between reliever innings and starter innings.

Relievers often pitch on many days close to each other and I feel like they exert themselves harder. Evident for that last one would be fastball speed increasing in the bullpen.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 5, 2009 2:20 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I also also think we REALLY need to see a controlled analysis here.

I mean, bumping up a pitcher’s workload for 100 IP to 200 IP seems like a bad idea, but well, IS IT?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 5, 2009 3:42 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i agree.

and by ‘we’ i mean ‘the guy who has the blog should be doing it’.

That makes you a blight on the face of the American sports landscape. It makes Jeffrey Loria an abomination as an owner. It does not, I should emphasize, reflect upon Larry Beinfest or the baseball operations staff, who have done yeoman's work under awful circumstances. That doesn't mean that the franchise should continue to exist though, because it exists solely and entirely to steal taxpayer money.

by larry on Jan 5, 2009 3:59 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Greg Smith?

I wonder how moving between leagues (from the presumed superior AL to the presumed inferior NL) and moving from Oakland to Colorado impacts the Verducci Effect. I think he threw 70 more innings or so this past season.

by jeffro on Jan 5, 2009 8:08 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What happens the year after the downfall? Are guys like Gorzellany decent “buy-low” candidates?

by passed ball on Jan 5, 2009 9:29 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

combined with Pitchers abuse points

let’s also throw in some younger pitchers who scored ridiculasly high on the PAP meter this year. (top 30 only)

#1: Tim Lincecum : ……………

#4: Justin Verlander : …havn’t they learned their lesson already this year?

  1. Matt Cain: Cain and Verlander both been on this list for multiple years now.
  1. Jon Lester:

#13: Cole Hamels

#17: Edison Volquez

#24: Felix Hernandez

#27: Johnny Cueto:

I can’t really fault the Red Sox and Phillies on Hamles and Lester due to their run, and I’m somewhat comfortable with Felix given how long he’s been around and his size. but um… wtf are the Giants and Reds thinking? (and Jim Leyland)

by RollingWave on Jan 6, 2009 1:14 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What about Todd Wellmeyer

He went from 80IP in 2007 to 191 in 2008

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Jan 8, 2009 2:24 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I do think the Verducci system is with flaws though. His system makes the mistake of assuming that all innings are created equal. In Mike Pelfrey’s case, he went from 17.7 pitches per inning in the big leagues in 2007 to 16.6 pitches per inning in 2008. As a result, he was able to get deeper into games, and not necessarily doing so at a more physically taxing rate. Pitch Counts is a much more accurate way to measure workload then Inning Counts would be, although I realize Pitch Count data, especially with the Minor Leagues, is not as easily accessible.

Likewise, I would argue that it’s not so much the pitches thrown that is important, but the pitches thrown past the point of fatigue, where the mechanics are starting to slip. Tim Lincecum had 5 starts where he threw 120+ pitches, including one start where he threw 138 pitches. Someone like Mike Pelfrey on the other hand was never allowed to surpass 120 pitches in a game all season long. I would argue those extra innings for Lincecum were more physically taxing then Pelfrey’s were.

I also think it’s naive to assume that an extra workload will have the same effect on Tim Lincecum’s body as it will have on Mike Pelfrey’s body. Pelfrey is 6’7 and 230 pounds. Lincecum, as fun as he is to watch, is probably not built as durably in his 5’11, 168 pound frame. It also doesn’t take into account mechanics (Pelfrey has pretty clean mechanics) and style of pitching (Pelfrey throws 80% fastballs with his 4 seamer and his sinker).

I don’t mean this to be pro-Pelfrey or anti-Lincecum propaganda or anything, just using them to exploit the flaws (As I see them) in the system.

by adropofvenom on Jan 8, 2009 3:40 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Lol

I was just posting something very similar. I agree with your take on Pelfrey for the most part, although I think you could make a case that Lincecum is actually more efficient with his mechanics than Pelfrey. But that’s just one school of thought, and I’m not an expert myself so I don’t really have any evidence to back it up one way or the other (aside from that story in SI a while back about how Lincecums dad developed the mechanical style and claims he was still throwing 88 mph at age 52) .

Pelfrey is going to be interesting to watch this year. He really wasn’t abused that badly, just heavily relied on. He threw a lot more innings, but not many more pitches. He did get up and sit down more often by pitching more innings, but he was very efficient, meaning most were low-stress innings. I think there’s a good chance the innings jump doesn’t have a huge effect on him. Still, there are other signs of a likely regression. He has a low K rate and gives up plenty of hits. He’s going to be relying on his infield defense heavily, half of which is still Castillo and Delgado, or he’s going to have to find a way to miss more bats. He likely won’t have a hard time keeping the ball in CitiField, so he doesn’t have to strike out a batter per inning, but unless he gets his K/9 up over 6.00, I still have a hard time seeing another sub-4.00 ERA 200 IP season for him. Maybe he has a shot with a 5.00 K/9 if he really keeps his command rock solid, but if the innings jump has any effect, I expect it will be a command setback.

On the other hand, the guy everyone’s writing off here for the Mets, who may have actually been punished by the Verducci effect in 2008, is John Maine. He was pitching through pain in 2008, and his command was a mess. But he does miss more bats, and figures to be healthy in 2009. With a bit better command, I could see Maine returning to sub-4.00 ERA form, and approaching 200 IP. I have a feeling that a year from now, Maine will be considered more of a reliable #3 type, while Pelfrey will be where Maine is now, coming off an inconsistent season with perhaps a minor physical issue that hurts his command. The key for Pelf will be that, even if his BBs rise, can he get those Ks up a bit higher too? If he does, I’ll like his chances moving forward, and if he can manage to maintain his command and increase his Ks in 2009, he should be a fine mid-rotation pitcher.

by Meddler on Jan 8, 2009 4:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The thing with Pelfrey, to me, is that he has an uncanny ability to induce the groundball when necessary. His double play rates last year were as good as extreme groundballers like Wang, Webb, and Cook. The difference of course, is that he wasn’t as reliant on it, and was more then content to eat up innings by inducing fly balls and taking advantage of his spacious outfield and plus outfield defense.

I think evaluating Pelfrey by just his H/K/BB rate doesn’t give you the complete picture. If we had batted ball data splits to access, I would love to compare his GB/FB rates in double play situations to that of those extreme GB pitchers, as I think he would compare quite favorably.

As for the infield defense comment, frankly, it’s not like Castillo or Delgado can be worse then last year, right?

I do like Maine for next year, mainly because I also believe that he was pitching hurt in 2008 (A bone spur doesn’t just develop overnight), and that he should return to form in 2009. But, I fail to see how he qualifies for the Verducci effect. Yes, he pitched 191 Innings in 2007, but with Postseason and Minor League innings he pitched 165.2 Innings in 2006, 168.1 innings in 2005, 151.2 innings in 2004, and 146 innings in 2003.

by adropofvenom on Jan 8, 2009 5:26 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

K/9 may be one of the most overrated stats for a pitcher

I understand that K’s might be used in a lot of fantasy leagues, but I believe that K/9 may be one of the most overrated stats for pitchers. In Pelfrey’s case, his K/9 may have been a little low, but he gave up only 12 HR in 200 IP last season. There are many pitchers with high K/9 who have given up a lot more HR/9. Some pitchers are effective because they miss the fat part of the bat more often rather than missing the entire bat. I think the goal of a pitcher is to miss the fat part of the bat, and while some pitchers may give up more bleeders through the infield, they give up a lot less solidly hit balls.

by WhatsYourName? on Jan 18, 2009 1:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

what about the YEAR after the effect?

so, any inquiry into how these guys bounce back from a Verducci Year?

by tweedy on Jan 8, 2009 4:08 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wonder about Adam Wainwright as an example a few years ago....

He spent 2006 as a reliever and pitched 72 innings. He pitched just over 200 innings in 2007. Now, he did spend a good chunk of 2008 out injured.

However, my point is, Wainwright was a starter in the minors and pitched 182 innings in 2005. Again, I know Wainwright was injured, so this might be a bad example, but for pitchers who interned as a reliever before getting the call as a starter (think Price of the Rays, as well), is the jump really that damaging when for years prior to the stint as a reliever, they were USED to pitching 180+ innings?

I guess Price in 2010 will be another case study of this point, just like Wainwright was the last few years. Of course, it seems like until there’s a reasonable sample size of guys like this (and I’m sure there are, I just don’;t know of them), it’s hard to use Wainwright as proof to a rule when it could simply be an exception.

by mtalken on Jan 9, 2009 2:03 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not too concerned about Price

In 2008, Price started 20 games and pitched 109 innings between the minors and majors, so he did pitch a fairly significant number of innings last season. It will be interesting to see how many innings he pitches in 2009.

You bring up an interesting point and one pitcher that can be added to your list is Justin Duchscherer of Oakland. He was a full-time reliever prior to 2008, having pitched 55 IP in 2006 and 16 IP in 2007 (as a reliever), and then jumping to 141 IP in 2008 (as a starter). Last season he missed 2 months with a hip injury (which could be a blessing in disguise), but I believe he had an arm problem in 2007. So I think he will be an interesting candidate of the Verducci Effect to watch this season.

by WhatsYourName? on Jan 18, 2009 1:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Start posting on Beyond the Box Score »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sleepy_jeff_small
WAR Lords of the Diamond (Pitchers)

Recent FanPosts

Small
SLG and Speed
Small
Interleague Attendance Nonsense
Limes_125_small
A Note About Becoming a BtB Author: Contributing to the Community Helps
Small
Is Adrian Beltre underrated...?
Limes_125_small
How Do You Like the New Daily Link Roundup Posts?
Stlouiscardinals_small
Depth Charts Help
Zorilla_small
How Do You Measure a Pitching Coach?
Limes_125_small
Looking For SQL & Tech Geek Help For Collaborative Projects
Small
When do MLBers get paid...?
Limes_125_small
Help Me Expand Who I Follow On Google Reader

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

There's your human element.  Why, when the technology is readily available, are humans still calling balls and strikes?
Fire Jim Leyland: Fu-Te Ni Follow Up; Concern Over Big Three?
Rany Gets Banned By the Royals
Contract Retrospective: Vernon Wells' 7-year, $126 Million Contract
The Rockets are innovative
Flip Flop Fly Ball
Yanks Considered Trading Rivera For Wells In '95: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com
Bullpen Usuage Charts for Last 5 days
MiLB Game of the Week
Drive Mechanics Looks at Chris Perez's Mechanics and Pitch F/X numbers

Post_icon New FanShot All FanShots Carrot-mini

Most Commented

Subscribe to BtB via Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

BtB Goes Social

BtB on Facebook

BtB_Sky on Twitter


Managers

Mos-def-the-ecstatic_small R.J. Anderson

Limes_125_small Sky Kalkman

Editors

Rawlings_baseball_bigger_small Dan Turkenkopf

Face_small Harry Pavlidis

770insig_small Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal)

Rickstache_small erik

Authors

Jinaz-reds-avatar_small JinAZ

Hms_surprise_small Graham

Wisc19cropped2_small jhmoore

Raysring1_small Tommy Rancel

E52205a2_small tbsmkdn

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports