The 2010 Hall of Fame Ballot, Graphically
by JinAZ on Dec 15, 2009 7:00 AM EST
in History & Hall of Fame
59 comments
The induction class for the 2009 Hall of Fame will be announced on January 6th. While Erik already looked at the most attractive new candiates for the Hall of Fame, I thought I'd take a tour through most of the rest of the ballot. Like Erik, I'll be using a mainstay graphical tool here at BtB, the WAR graph. The Excel template I threw together to make these figures can be found here.
In all graphs, we're plotting Rally's WAR for individual seasons ranked best to worst. The "HoF Zone" is a range that spans from the average Hall of Famer (specific to either pitchers or hitters) down to the 20th percentile Hall of Famer. Thanks to Sky Kalkman (the inventor), Jeff Zimmerman, Tom Tango, and Dave Studeman for driving the development of this graphical approach.
Let's start with pitchers, because there aren't as many on the ballot and the story is pretty straightforward.
There is absolutely no excuse for Blyleven to not receive unanimous support for the Hall. But you knew that.
Kevin Appier is the surprise to me, though. He's gotten very little attention in his first year of eligibility, but his 10 best seasons seem extremely worth of hall of fame consideration. In fact, his peak three years rate as above-average compared to hall of fame pitchers. He deserves consideration.
Jack Morris is the guy who will probably get a lot more attention than Appier. He's close, but at best, he's in the 15th percentile or so of Hall of Famers. Given all of the other eligible candidates who were much better that this, I tend to think that this isn't good enough.
Pat Hentgen had one really nice season. Lee Smith was a closer...I'm not sure if this is the best way to evaluate a closer, but it certainly doesn't make him impressive. Mike Jackson's line, not shown, is similar to Smith's.
Position players are below the jump
There are a lot of position players on this year's ballot, as is typical. I've opted to break them down into three sets of five. Here are the top five, to my eye.
This graph is admittedly kind of a mess. But the key point I'd emphasize isthat all five players are more or less in or above the Hall of Fame zone throughout most of their careers, meaning that their seasons rank very favorably with other already-inducted Hall of Fame players. There's enough criss-crossing that I wouldn't argue with any ranking of these players. I tend to put the most value on the top-10 seasons, and up-weight the top-5 seasons relative to others. So, for what it's worth, I'd put them: Alomar, Trammell, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire. But Alomar could just as easily be ranked last of the five.
Barry Larkin was my favorite player growing up, and so I've spent some time arguing his very strong case elsewhere. The only guy among these five that I think one could have a legitimate issue with is Mark McGwire, and it's entirely dependent on how you weight the steroid issue. To me, the steroid issue is one to focus on moving forward (prevention and abolition). But given all the uncertainty regarding how much of an effect performance enhancing drugs actually have on performance, and the fact that we probably still do not know a major fraction of the players who actively made use of the drugs, my preference is to not factor it into decision making...except perhaps as a tiebreaker.
Here are the next five:
Given all the hoopla surrounding his candidacy, I actually expected Tim Raines to look better than he does. I still think he's a good candidate and deserving of induction, but he's a below-average hall of famer. That's not a bad thing.
The other four--Murphy, Mattingly, Parker, and Dawson--are interesting in that they all peaked well, but fell off badly once you get past their five or so best seasons. My feeling is that Mattingly didn't peak high enough, and Parker fell away too quickly to deserve induction. Dawson and Murphy are borderline cases. Murphy had the better peak, posting above-hall of fame average numbers over his best three seasons. Dawson had better longevity. As I write this, I'd probably give Murphy the nod and not Dawson, but tomorrow I might go the other way, whereas two days later I might say neither or both should get in. I really don't know.
Here are five of the remaining hitters. Others, like Todd Ziele and Eric Karros, aren't shown as there's just no case to be had.
Ellis Burks looks a lot like Pat Hentgen--one really spectacular season, while the rest of his career is squarely in the Hall of Very Good. Robin Ventura hasn't gotten much attention, but he's basically skirting the 20th percentile of Hall of Famer's at the bottom of the HoF Zone. I'd probably say that he's very close, and better than some guys already in the hall...but that he's wouldn't quite get my vote. Baines played forever thanks to the DH, but was never a good enough player at his best to warrant consideration (yes, the DH hurts him here). Finally, Ray Lankford and Andres Gallaraga serve as nice examples of players that aren't really candidates for the Hall of Fame, but nevertheless had fine careers and should be celebrated.
Maybe I'm a big hall kind of guy, but my ballot would look like this: Blyleven, Alomar, Trammell, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Appier, Murphy. In that order. And maybe Dawson too.
0 recs |
59 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I pretty much agree with you.
I’m not sure that I could put Dawson in though, his defense wasn’t that good and he only spent a few seasons in center, and that .323 OBP is pretty tough to get by.
I think that it’s astonishing that Blyleven and Trammel haven’t gotten in yet, and it’s pretty clear that Alomar, Raines, Larkin, Martinez and McGwire are all had HOF-quality careers as well. I’m on the fence with Murphy and Appier, they were pretty great for some time but they didn’t have the longevity that you would expect from a Hall of Famer.
Frankly, there are probably a lot of guys in the Hall that don’t deserve to be, and it’s only going to lead to more guys that don’t quite deserve to get in getting in as well. It is what it is, but I think that’s the reality.
Dawson was a great defender early in his career in Montreal
By the time he moved to the Cubs in the late ’80’s, his defense had fallen off, however. Rally overall has him at -15 runs after adding positional adjustments, and that’s not bad at all considering he played the corners for a long time.
I’d agree with the ballot presented here, though I’d likely exclude Murphy and perhaps Appier, as they are on the borderline for me. The top position players should all go in, though I doubt they will. I’d expect Alomar to get in, but I don’t think any of the others, particularly the first timers, will.
Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Come attend Intro to Sabermetrics 101!
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.
I have no problem with excluding Murphy.
Appier, though, has too strong of a case in my mind to ignore.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I would have laughed at Appier before this, but I think I'm now on board.
Want to take a look at his specific stats from those awesome seasons – they’ll be dominant, right?
Murphy had a nice peak, but, to me, he needed to be more dominant in those years to make up for lack of anything historic after his fifth best season.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 16, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Most impressive his his HR allowed rate
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3&position=P#advanced
I think so anyway. Different era. But he had good k-rates for his time, fine walk rates, and threw a lot of innings most years. We’re not taking Pedro Martinez dominance here, but he was very good for a long time.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Two points
Regarding Appier, his top-10 seasons are legit. After that, he does fall off. But, to me, 10 years is enough.
As for undeserving HoF’ers, that’s part of the reason that we end the “HoF Zone” at the 20th percentile. If you treat that zone as gospel (not saying you should, of course), this would mean that you have to be better than 20% of Hall of Famers throughout your career to be eligible for the Hall.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Appier has a decent case, but the W-L record is going to kill him..
It’s true, his best ten seasons are pretty impressive, but he also was really an elite player for only eight seasons, and he got some decent luck in his very best seasons, as far as BABIP and strand rate go. Not to mention that after the aforementioned eight seasons, he only had essentially two more solid years and he struggled the rest of the way.
I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with Appier getting in, and I’d much rather see him get in than Jack Morris, but realistically, I don’t think that a guy with a 169-137 record has a great shot at getting in.
You may be right on Appier's record
I guess my argument is more about who should get in, rather than who will.
Anyone know of a quick way to get run support for Appier vs. Morris?
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Appier 4.6
Morris 4.9
Despite being in a more hitter friendly era, Appier got less offensive support
Morris averaged 20.2 runners on base per 35 starts when he left the game; his pen allowed 35.9% of them to score. Appier left 19.9 per 35; his pen allowed 37.3% of them to score… So Appier was hurt slighly more by his pen than Morris… Morris went two outs deeper into his average start, so proabbly related to that…?
Appier left 27 games in a position to win that his pen blew, but his offense/pen saved him from 32 games where he was on the hook for a loss but got a ND. Stick that in his W/L record and he goes to 196-169 .537… Do the same for Morris and he goes to 276-224 .552… that closes the w% gap by ~40%
Not sure of the impact of this, but Appier was ‘asked’ to go out on short rest 4.0% of the time and had atleast one extra day 40.8% of the time. Morris was on short rest 13.7% of the time and had extra rest just 23.5% of the time.
Any chance you have league-average scoring rates for their careers to adjust the run support numbers?
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Try this… www.buttonsarenttoys.net/ESPN/AppierVsMorris.xls
I tossed in the PPF and did a park adjusted RS/9 and used that to create a “RunSupport+” value where 100 is average and >100 is above average support, etc.
Morris comes in at +9% and Appier at -4%
Awesome, thanks.
In a 4.5 RPG environment, that’s 4.9 vs. 4.3 runs per game support difference, or 95 over 162 games. That’s a MUCH better offense, and it’s ON AVERAGE. Jeesh.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Appier's also hurt by his release by the Angels
At the time he set a record for most money remaining on his contract when released.
And being part of a disappointing Mets team in 2001 didn’t help.
Also Appier played in the minors (with the Mariners) as recently as 2006!
by Alex Krolewski on Dec 15, 2009 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Morris v. Appier
Nice work on this post overall, lots of info to digest. I must say however that any graph that suggests Kevin Appier was a better pitcher than Jack Morris proves that graphs are not the best way to evaluate a pitcher.
Morris v. Appier
Morris pitched longer, Appier pitched better. WAR says Appier pitched enough “better” that it outweigh’s Morris’s “longer”…
Appier has a better ERA, FIP, K/BB, HR/9, and career WAR. Morris pitched longer but his peak was significantly worse than Appier’s, they’re hardly comparable in that aspect.
by Satchel Price on Dec 15, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
Morris
As has been said elsewhere, maybe on Tango’s blog, I think Morris’s candidacy basically comes down to one brilliant game in the playoffs.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Anybody ready to vote for Josh Beckett?
by Satchel Price on Dec 15, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
rany had a write up the other day
on the case for appier. link
Thanks for that
Not the kind of article, unfortunately, that many people will read given its length. It does a nice job of illustrating the guy’s case. I agree that he almost certainly won’t get in, and might have a hard time staying on the ballot for next year. But I still think he deserves it.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Q: does this method give demerits for negative WAR seasons?
I would think if HOF caliber guys want to keep playing but have a bad year or two, that shouldn’t hurt their case for the HOF. Trammel looks like he loses 5 WAR for his worst 3 seasons. Ripken is probably similar here. Maybe play with weights or scale at advanced ages, after N seasons, or something.
It has to be Blyleven and Trammel. Raines and Alomar are good choices, and I can’t argue against Larkin. I’m amazed at how badly Mattingly dropped off. I was very bullish on his baseball cards back in the day.
This isn't a "method" as much as it is a way to visualize their career
If you want to ignore the tail end of the graph, that’s your right. JinAZ said in the post that he weights the top seasons more than the lower seasons.
That’s what’s great about these graphs, they compare players and you can interpret them how you want.
Unless you interpret them to say that Jack Morris should make it into the hall. Then you’re just wrong.
by lookatthosetwins on Dec 15, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
I wonder if there are any other players with SIXTEEN above average years and FIVE below replacement years, with nothing in the middle…
Dawson wrecked it...
by being below average at 1.9 WAR in 1989 and 1990.
Here are the offensive players I can find with the most >=1.9 WAR and <0 WAR seasons without any in the middle:
Dawson 21 (16 and 5)
Reggie Smith (15 and 2)
A-Rod (14 and 2)
Curt Lemon (13 and 3)
Jeter (14 and 1)
Polanco (10 and 2)
A-Rod, Jeter and Polanco, being active, can still easily knock themselves off of this list.
Had Mantle played alittle more in 1951 [or not at all] he’d have been 18-0 [or 17-0], ie never below average for a season… Knock off Jeter’s 51 PA 1995 and he’s sitting at 15-0.
My Ballot
Alomar
Blyleven
Larkin
Martinez
McGwire
Raines
Trammel
I’d heavily consider Smith and Ventura
HOF vote
I don’t know if your exculsion of Fred McGriff was an oversite or just ignorance of his achievements. Considering some of the chaf you otherwise mentioned for whatever reason I can only hope that an ‘expert’ would have knowledge of the top talent and wouldn’t exclude for personal agenda. Anyway, Andre Dawson had 8 Gold Gloves for the person who said his defense was bad. Edgar Martinez never played defense and if it wasn’t for the DH, he never would have put up the numbers he did because he wouldn’t have been on the field.
Forget all the silly little formulas floating around baseball. Dawson has better numbers then every hitter on your list. He was near as complete as a player could be. He ruined his knees of the Astroturf up in Montreal, which slowed him down a little. NO ONE on the ballot can compare to his overall totals.
Of his generation, only Rickey Henderson was better then Tim Raines at lead-off.
Here is how the unbias HOF voting should read: 1. Blyleven (should have been done years ago!) 2. Andre Dawson (5-tool superstar overlooked because his prime years were in Canada.). 3. Robbie Alomar (9 Gold Gloves, clutch hitter; the best all round 2b I’ve ever seen) 4. Fred McGriff (was of the most consistent cleanup hitters in baseball and second best production numbers to Dawson. Look it up people! McGwire pales in comparison to ‘The Crime Dog’. 5. Tim Raines (you think 808 career steals are an everyday occurance. He was a DOMINANT leadoff hitter and that’s what HOF members are suppose to be. His presense in the lineup changed the strategy of the game.)
about dawson
the whole ‘ravaged knees’ thing has never made sense to me. a lot of great players get hurt bad and lose a chance at the hall (albert belle). to overcome that, you must be absolutely dominant over that short peak you had, ala koufax. dawson obviously had a nice peak, but not enough, in my opinion, to overcome his overall record as a player.
as far as being overcast in canada, i know what you mean, but i think biases like that just help people from bigger places get in (jim rice?! really?), but don’t necessarily hurt others like dawson. then again, blyleven and trammel should be in, and they are from minnesota and detroit, so…
"I throw him four wide ones then try to pick him off first base." - Preacher Roe on Stan Musial
McGriff
Leaving him out was an oversight. Sorry about that. Definitely not a personal agenda. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people invoke something like that…
He actually falls just shy of Ventura’s line. Very good player for a long time, but being an average to below-average fielder at 1B hurts his overall value and keeps him from being Hall-worthy, at least to my eye. I’ll post a graph with him in a sec.
As for Dawson…I’m just going to say that I disagree and leave it at that.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
McGriff Graph
I included a few of the other borderline cases we’re discussing here as well.
As I read it: Raines yes, Dawson maybe, Ventura maybe, Mattingly no, McGriff no.
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Grouping into fives
Helpful analysis here, especially for the pitchers. The difficulty with the hitters is that there are so many of them, and so they had to be grouped into fives. I would have put Raines in the first batch and McGwire in the second. That seems to fit better. I’m not sure why Raines was relegated to the second group. Perhaps lifetime WAR ranking would be a fairer way to group them. I’d also switch Mattingly and Ventura.
I can see making either of those changes
I think what it comes down to is that there are no perfect ways to rank each of these players. I pushed Raines to the second group because it seems like that’s where he fit best to my eye. He tends to hug the lower part of the HoF zone, whereas McGwire tends to huge the upper-part (at least over his 8-9 best seasons). As I said, I think Raines should be in that Hall.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Rally WAR versus BP WAR
Is there an analysis somewhere out there about the differences between these two systems? They produce major differences for some players.
Major differences WAR vs. WARP
It used to be that there were tremendous differences because WARP used a different baseline than everyone else. Davenport caved and changed that this year, I think. He also changed to a fielding stat that is, I think, basically Dan Fox’s SFR, which is extremely similar to TotalZone.
There are other major remaining differences:
- Position adjustments in Rally’s work are based largely on pairs on differences in fielding. WARP uses differences in offense. Fielding’s the way to go (we can get into why if you want).
- Replacement level for starters vs. relievers. AFAIK WARP doesn’t account for these differences.
- Run estimator. I’m not sure on this, as I don’t remember what WARP uses. However, many of the BPro stats use a fairly poor run estimator that tends to, for example, undervalue walks. My understanding is that Rally’s WAR is powered by base runs, or linear weights extracted from base runs equations.
All in all, WAR is a more accurate stat than WARP. WARP’s much better than it was a few years ago. But it’s still not quite where WAR is. Still, at least if someone publishes something with WARP now, it’s not total crap..
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I believe WARP uses EqR, which is pretty linear and not so bad.
Same thing for RARP, which is the offensive input for WARP, I believe. VORP is the one that uses the really bad estimator (MLVr).
Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Come attend Intro to Sabermetrics 101!
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.
Very helpful - thanks a lot!
Thanks to both JinAZ and SFiercex4.
by pacbellpilgrim on Dec 16, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Neyer Link
“…this might be the single best way of looking at Cooperstown credentials that I’ve ever seen.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1799/wednesday-wangdoodles-34
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Baines' graph is awesome.
I use a somewhat arbitrary cutoff of 4 WAR as “All-Star caliber” (2 is average, 6 is MVP votes, 8 is top MVP candidate, 10 is an historical season). Baines didn’t have any 4+ WAR seasons. Wow.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
1955-2008 data
Here are the top players in career WAR where they never exceeded particular threshholds in a given season [min 100 runs worth of “replacement” value to set the min at about five years worth of PAs]:
2 WAR
Tony Graffanino .. best, 1.9; career 12.6
Glenallen Hill .. 2.0; 9.0
3 WAR
Benito Santiago 2.8, 22.3
Don Slaught 2.9, 18.1
Gary Redus 2.9, 17.7
Todd Zeile 2.4, 17.0
4 WAR:
Harold Baines 4.0 39.7
Rick Monday 3.9 33.9
Gary Matthews Sr 3.7, 29.9
5 WAR:
Davey Lopes 5.0 40.8
Harold Baines 4.0 39.7
Chili Davis 4.8 38.5
…
HoFers: Mazeroski’s best year was 4.4, Aparicio 5.3, Brock 5.5, Tony Perez 6.6… Baines would set a new low atleast among those HoFers who debuted 1956 or later.
by erosen on Dec 16, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Ok, now Dan wants to who has the most seasons with negative WAR.
Might need playing time minimums?
Maybe most career WAR with 3 300+ PA negative WAR seasons? 4 such seasons, 5, etc.?
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Start with Neifi Perez's player page.
You can’t go wrong.
I would just add Ventura to your list.
I’m a big hall guy too.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
He's got a decent case
No argument here.
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Request for techies...
Creative an interactive WAR graph where we can select up to five players to compare at any one time, which HoF gray area to show (pitchers/hitters), and if we’d like to save a jpg of it. That’s easy, right?
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
try this...
This is just hitters who debuted 1956 or later, with data through 2008, min 20 career WAR.
www.buttonsarenttoys.net/ESPN/buildgraph.xls
Select exactly one batter from each pivot table and click “BuildGraph” the avg HoFer bar isn’t there and there wouldn’t be a full compliment of hitters [or any pitching WAR data], until a nice big extract of data came from the Rally data [that I don’t have]…
We'll just say...
…that the data here was obtained programmatically, not through purchase from Rally [If I intend to use the data in any kind of professional manner, I would of course pay for it and get it legitimately :)]
Side note.
I love Rally’s WAR, but there are pieces you can disagree with. Fielding, number one. Don Mattingly and Roberto Alomar are considered by most to have been awesome defenders at their position. But TotalZone gives them +15 and -24 career fielding runs, respectively, which are both pretty average. If you bump Alomar up to +5 to +10 runs per season, on average (which is what all those Gold Gloves should imply), then he’s the obvious leader on the first graph. Repeat for Mattingly, and he falls in line with Andre Dawson (through 14 seasons.)
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Totally agree, TotalZone has some serious issues.
Frankly, I think that as helpful as TotalZone is, applying it on a year-to-year basis to evaluate a fielder’s performance within a single season seems unfair. I just don’t have much faith in any defensive metrics that don’t include detailed information on batted balls.
I just don’t know how you can take TotalZone that seriously when it considered Alomar to be below-average defensively every year from 1993 to 1997, and then suddenly in 1998 he posted a +11.3 mark? I get the logistics and often times TotalZone can be helpful to get a very general idea on whether a fielder was clearly good or clearly bad, but when it rates Alomar as 24 runs below average for his career.
It certainly doesn’t ruin Rally’s WAR, it’s still a great tool, but realistically that needs to be factored in, because it’s just so hard to evaluate defense from the days before detailed batted ball information was kept.
by Satchel Price on Dec 16, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
Fair points
But for what it’s worth, I don’t even trust the metrics that do have hit location information.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/uzr_on_fangraphs_using_bis_on_ichiro/
It’s not that they’re irrelevant, but a single season of UZR has to be regressed substantially to be a reliable projection of talent/future performance.
My feeling is that, at a career level, TZ is usually pretty decent. But it definitely misses on some players. Prior to the mid-1980’s when we can get ZR information, though, it’s the best we have.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
To clarify, I agree on UZR..
Yeah, I probably should’ve clarified that I totally agree on UZR as well, I generally think
that the defensive metrics we have today are primarily only useful in looking for patterns on significant sample sizes, some 2-3 years at least, and realistically we don’t have a system
that accurately evaluates the defensive value of a player on a year-to-year basis yet.
I just question the validity of TotalZone in terms of anything more than a 8-10 year sample size, and even then I think that it still fails to properly evaluate many players, Alomar being a good example, as he’s routinely been regarded as one of the best defensive second baseman of all time.
Sabermetrics still has a ton of work to do though when it comes to defense.
by Satchel Price on Dec 16, 2009 5:46 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Best system for a single year
In my view, it’s the Fan Scouting Report. It has its own issues of overrating older formerly good defensive players and such, but at least the surveys tend to be remarkably consistent with one another. If you get 20 votes, you’re almost assured to have the same rating of a player (within a small margin) as you would in the next 100 votes. Great example is in shortstops: both Jack Wilson and Orlando Cabrera were rated by fans of two teams last year. And they’re ranked right next to each other.
http://www.tangotiger.net/scout/index6.php?prim_fld_cd=6
Great line from Tango when I mentioned this a while back:
As I’ve said in the past, all you need is two groups of 15 fans, and you will get a correlation of r=.9×. That is hugely impressive in my view.
Maybe the fans don’t know anything, but at least they all don’t know the same thing: they are consistent.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
oops
That last line was part of Tango’s quote. Bah.
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Sweet, my name gets auto linked.
Too bad I haven’t pitched in 4+ years.
Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Dec 17, 2009 10:18 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
