|
Badfinger posted:Johan Santana and Shane Victorino are current players who were left unprotected and subsequently selected in the Rule V draft. In fact, Victorino was Rule V drafted in 2002, returned to his original team, and then Rule V drafted in 2004 when he caught on with the Phillies. There are not tons of players from Rule V who ever make much of an impact. Wasn't Werth a Rule V? edit: Joakim Soria was a Rule V. Werth was not, he was a minor league FA.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 21:26 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 07:14 |
|
|
Johan was one of those aforementioned guys who struggled in the low levels of the minors and then magically figured out how to pitch, the talent was obviously there people just thought he'd never be able to piece it all together.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 21:37 |
|
|
leokitty posted:[explanation] Awesome awesome, thank you. I look forward to posting up in this place.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 21:56 |
|
|
chrysamere posted:Is it just me, or do the playoffs seem like a total crapshoot? I don't feel like a season that is 162 games long can be accurately decided by a best of 5 or 7 games series. Some of the winners like the '06 Cardinals, '10 Giants and losers, like the '07 Rockies seem woefully insufficient to me. Supposedly, there are certain factors that actually do make a difference in the post season. Relief pitching is one. Great starting pitchers are what you want, but you can lose a few games here and there during the regular season when they have an off day and you don't have the bullpen to save the day. In the playoffs, you have to have pitchers who can come on to keep things close. You can't have off days.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:18 |
|
|
leokitty posted:2. Arm strength - Bobby Abreu I thought Vlad or Ichiro would be the modern example of this. Also amusingly, Brad Hawpe has a cannon but it's meaningless as him getting to a ball is purely theoretical.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:23 |
|
|
What would be a good model for a pool or fantasy league aimed at people new to baseball? I'm guessing this would be a good way to learn.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:28 |
|
|
Pumpkin McPastry posted:I thought Vlad or Ichiro would be the modern example of this. Abreu is the textbook guy who plays in RF solely because of his arm so I thought it was a better example.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:33 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wasn't Werth a Rule V? Abreu was a rule V pick, and so was Josh Hamilton. Although Hamilton had a bunch of extra stuff going on that allowed him to be left unprotected. edit: Abreu was actually in the expansion draft, but he was still left unprotected like a rule v pick would be Nodoze fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2011 around 22:47 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:45 |
|
|
Pumpkin McPastry posted:I thought Vlad or Ichiro would be the modern example of this. These were the two that sprung to mind for me as well 
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:50 |
|
|
To the sure who asked about reverse busts, Jeff Kent is another good one. 20th round pick out of CCal and signed immediately
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 22:51 |
|
|
Just a couple of questions/comments So when guys are drafted a couple years in a row, that is because they were draft and follows who didn't get signed and someone drafted them the next year? And can a team draft the same player twice? And with the optioning thing, is that over a career, a year or a contract that they can only be optioned 3 times? That Rule V thing with the Pirates was incredibly  I assume he was fired after that?And I don't know what I thought the 5 tools were for players, but I had hitting as being one thing. Seriously don't remember what I had decided was the 5th tool. I haven't read Moneyball, but I plan on getting to it eventually, and is the upcoming film have any chance to be good? And are there any other books that would be worth a read? And documentaries? I remember when Jeter won the gold glove last year, there was a lot of making fun of it because he was one of the worst statistically in the league or something like that because of his range, statistically, how is that shown? How good is the Indians farm system, will they be good in a couple of years, and was Eric Wedge as big of a tool as I thought he was while he was here? And does MLB have anything like the NFL does in regards to personal conduct policy, I ask because of someone like Miguel Cabrera. drat, that's alot of questions, will probably have more later. edit, came up with another, I remember a few years ago Vlad Guerrero was really talked up as a guy who would swing at anything, stuff bouncing off the dirt, way outside or inside, golf shots, stuff like that, how much of that was a media creation and how much of that was real, and are there other players that have similar abandon while at the plate? I am Bob fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2011 around 23:14 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:11 |
|
|
I am Bob posted:Just a couple of questions/comments There is no more draft and follow. When you see a guy get drafted more than once it's because they did not come to an agreement with the team and either went to college, stayed another year at college, or sat out and played indy ball for a year. Jeters defense is shown to be bad by a bunch of stuff like UZR. It basically charts what you can and can't get to that's hit in your fielding zone. His lack of range isn't just numbers though, it's pretty evident just watching him play too. But he makes pretty jump throws so he must be good. MLB does not have a personal conduct policy like the NFL does, you very rarely see players get suspended for off the field reasons. I can't remember the last time someone got suspended for something other than failing a drug test or for taking place in an on the field fight.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:21 |
|
|
I am Bob posted:So when guys are drafted a couple years in a row, that is because they were draft and follows who didn't get signed and someone drafted them the next year? And can a team draft the same player twice? 1. If you are drafted multiple times its because you didn't sign the first/2nd time. You can be drafted by the same team twice. 2. When a player is put on the 40 man roster, he gets 3 options. For every year he spends 20 days in the minor leagues, he burns an option. When you burn an option, it is burned for the entire year, so you can move players up and down. If you have less than 5 years of pro experience and you are out of options, you get a 4th option. Once you get 5 years of experience, you can refuse your optioning. So really, its for players who are new. You get options even if you have a major league deal (some players sign major league deals out of the draft and are put on the 40 man immediately and begin burning options) 3. Moneyball, Dollar Sign on the Muscle, Odd Man Out, Baseball Between the Numbers, Ball Four, Universal Baseball Association, Cheaters Guide to Baseball 4. Vlad swings at anything but has a preternatural ability to make contact. Some players swing at anything as well but to less effect because they suck at making contact or good contact. Robinson Cano before the last 2 years was like Vlad, very good but swung at anything. Its different from a guy like Mark Reynolds who will walk, but sucks at making contact. Pablo Sandoval and Jeff Francouer will swing at anything like Vlad.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:23 |
|
|
I took the ones that I wanted to take.I am Bob posted:Just a couple of questions/comments You can in fact draft the same player twice. Now you can't draft and follow; there's a hard signing deadline closer to the draft. Here's what happens: 1. Draft a player. 2. Negotiate with player. 3. Try to get them to sign a deal before the signing deadline. 4. Once the signing deadline comes, two things can happen: 5a. The player and the team reach an agreement. Broadly, the player becomes part of that team's minor league organization. Some guys have contracts that are MLB contracts. This doesn't mean that they are going to play in The Show, it just means that they are on the 40-man roster and will use an option every year they are in the minors. 5b. The player and the team don't reach an agreement. The player maintains their amateur status, and if they're still NCAA eligible, they go back to college (typically). Most guys who don't sign are still NCAA eligible - that's how they have leverage. Once they are seniors in college, they don't have much leverage. If they fail to reach an agreement with the drafting team, they go play indy ball in the middle of loving nowhere for a year and get paid like ten grand. I am Bob posted:And with the optioning thing, is that over a career, a year or a contract that they can only be optioned 3 times? Options are over the course of a career. You burn an option for every year that you spend over 20 days on the 40-man roster but not on the 25-man roster. For players with less than five year's professional service time, they can be optioned for a fourth year. I am Bob posted:I remember when Jeter won the gold glove last year, there was a lot of making fun of it because he was one of the worst statistically in the league or something like that because of his range, statistically, how is that shown? UZR is popular, but noted forums poster UZR IS BULLSHIT begs to differ. There are a few different advanced fielding metrics. UZR and Dewan's +/- are my two favorites, but they're all similar. They try to quantify the value of each defensive play made over the course of the season. None of them are great, but Jeter is statuesque. You can tell he's terrible at defense by watching him play. I am Bob posted:How good is the Indians farm system, will they be good in a couple of years, and was Eric Wedge as big of a tool as I thought he was while he was here? Eric Wedge has a fuckin jaw like the prow of a bulk container freighter. AlleyViper is your man on Tribe prospects, but they have a pretty deep system that doesn't have a lot of standouts aside from Carlos Santana. Quantity over quality type thing right now.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:25 |
|
|
I am Bob posted:edit, came up with another, I remember a few years ago Vlad Guerrero was really talked up as a guy who would swing at anything, stuff bouncing off the dirt, way outside or inside, golf shots, stuff like that, how much of that was a media creation and how much of that was real, and are there other players that have similar abandon while at the plate? 100% real. As for comparisons, I can't really think of a player exactly like Vlad. There are plenty of free-swingers like Adam Jones and Jeff Francouer, but none of them match Vlad's contact abilities. Abel Wingnut fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2011 around 23:30 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:26 |
|
|
Holy poo poo guys. Thanks for making this thread. I've been posting in the GDT's for 3 years, but I didn't have the guts to ask you guys for an 'education' in all this stuff. Thanks! edit: Just bought Moneyball so I can learn some more stuff. Joe Don Baker fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2011 around 23:55 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:42 |
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Holy poo poo guys. Thanks for making this thread. I didn't have the guts to ask you guys for an 'education' in all this stuff. Thanks! Yup, this is pretty much my thought as well. Thanks a bunch for all that.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:47 |
|
|
Can someone with archives dig up the book list we made in the MLB Recommend me books thread that I made last summer?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2011 23:49 |
|
|
Scoobi posted:1. If you are drafted multiple times its because you didn't sign the first/2nd time. You can be drafted by the same team twice. Expanding on this (talking to the original asker, not Scoobi, obviously) - unlike in football, you don't register for the baseball draft and declare yourself eligible. Anyone from the US, Puerto Rico and Canada can be drafted by any team, with some restrictions. The Tigers could draft me this year if they wanted to, though thus far they've refused. Foreign players are not drafted (unless they played high school or college ball in the US), they are just signed as free agents.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 00:14 |
|
|
I am Bob posted:I remember when Jeter won the gold glove last year, there was a lot of making fun of it because he was one of the worst statistically in the league or something like that because of his range, statistically, how is that shown? BILL JAMES Bill James is basically the father of modern sabermetrics, not exactly because he came up with amazing new stuff (some of the things he popularized had been theorized decades earlier), but because he was willing to challenge the popular conventions of baseball statistical thinking and his Baseball Abstracts found their way into the hands of a lot of people who got inspired by them and made their own discoveries. Bill James decided that errors and fielding percentage were actually quite bad at telling you who a good fielder is. The thing about errors is that you can only make one if you actually get a hand on the ball. If it goes 4 feet wide of you, it's just a hit. So he came up with Range Factor. Range factor is (Assists + Put Outs)/ Games. Alternately, (A + PO)x 9/ Innings Played. He figured the more plays you were involved in meant you were better at getting your hands on the ball. It is actually not a very good statistic but it got people thinking. Then came Zone Rating. What zone rating did was literally slice up the diamond into 26 zones (A through Z) and assign them to a position. Balls that were hit into that zone were that position's responsibility. The percentage of plays made on balls hit into that zone make up that fielder's Zone Rating. Zone Rating was created by John Dewan.  Read more about Zone Rating here, from where I have blatantly stolen that picture. Then came stuff like UZR and RZR. RZR incorporated Out of Zone plays into your Zone Rating. It gave a better picture of how much range a player truly had. If you are a second baseman or shortstop and you are making plays literally on the other side of the diamond, you're either way out of position or you have incredible range. I believe RZR is also a percentage. UZR gives you a number. 0 is average. It basically incorporates that already talked about zone stuff and weights it to give you a sense of how that fielder is doing. Some people really dislike UZR because it can fluctuate WILDLY from year to year. It's common consensus around here that if you're going to cite UZR with any authority at all you have to use multiple-year averages. The other reason people don't like it is that even with it's accepted flaws it's still used in Fangraphs' WAR calculations, which means that their "one glance" player value number is using a defensive calculation that might be completely accurate, but might totally suck! It's a shame, because wOBA on the offensive side of the WAR calculation owns a lot. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/inde...phs-uzr-primer/ Then there's John Dewan's +/- which I really like. It measures how many plays above or below average a fielder made relative to his position. They track games manually, and based on location, batted ball data, etc each ball in play gets a percentage assigned to it based on how often that play is made. So if 95% of all fielders make a play on the ball and the fielder makes the play, .05 of a play above average gets credited to the player. If 20% of all players make the play and the fielder makes it, .8 gets credited. They are debited the opposite for not making the play. It's really involved and I'm pretty sure someone here used to work for BIS if he wants to chime in! Read more about it here. http://www.billjamesonline.net/fiel...g-Bible-FAQ.asp Badfinger fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2011 around 00:17 |
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 00:14 |
|
|
leokitty posted:The 5 tools for position players are: To a degree it's an evaluation of their current level combined with what their ceiling projects to. Considering their ceiling is important because it's absurd to say that Harper, recently out of HS, has an 80 MLB bat. A BA subscription is a good way to follow baby baseballers but you'll hear mixed reviews about their projections. Following prospects from draft through the minors to the majors is one of the most fun things about the sport, especially if the good ones are in your team's minor league system. With about 5000 guys in the minors with a 1 in 10 (maybe) of getting a sniff of the bigs after 3-4 years or so of toil, it's a wonder the sport stays in business. Don't let that 5000 number scare you. The good ones stand out like beacons and you'll get to know who they are quickly. The rest, as leokitty says, are just filler.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 00:18 |
|
|
Scrotos posted:Can someone with archives dig up the book list we made in the MLB Recommend me books thread that I made last summer? There wasn't an official list. Here's the thread if someone wants to make one.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 00:30 |
|
|
Yeah, this is definitely a good thread. I really hope posters don't feel too intimidated by the inherent cliquey-ness of the MLB threads; as long as you're friendly and not being stubborn or close-minded, I really think people will be perfectly kind to you. What you don't want to do is start arguments right off the bat concerning topics that everyone has already reached a consensus on. For instance, don't show up and start extolling the importance of win/loss records and bunting - it won't lead to a good result. But even if you do start a reasonable argument, listen to what the posters are saying and don't disregard them because it doesn't fit into your pre-established perspective on how the sport works. The real issue is that there's a GREAT deal of bad information being put forth by in-game commentators, sportswriters, and radio/TV broadcasters and hosts. It's a pretty serious issue in MLB, and I don't know if it's as bad in other sports but I suspect it's a problem most everywhere. Currently, there's just a huge gap between baseball traditionalists and people who are willing to integrate new information and schools of thought, largely involving the use of statistics in lieu of anecdotal evidence. People will take you much more seriously if you use statistics in your posts (even just slash lines and basic K/BB numbers are fine to start with) rather than trying to back up your point-of-view by saying "Well, I've been watching (such and such pitcher or hitter) for years so I KNOW that he's terrible/great regardless of what any of those stats say!" Doing this will make everyone ignore you and be rude to you, and I think the reputation of us being "insular" often comes from incidents exactly like that. Also, I can't stress this enough: read Moneyball. It's not a perfect book by any means, but it is an excellent primer on what I was talking about before with the gap between traditionalists and statistics-oriented analysis. It will make you watch the sport in an entirely new way (at least it did for me) and it tells a really fun, engaging, and well-paced story in the process. It's also very friendly towards the uninitiated - you really don't need to know a single thing about baseball or statistics in order to read and enjoy it, and when you're finished you'll have a much greater understanding of everything that's going on during a baseball game.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 02:28 |
|
|
At the risk of stepping into a minefield, I have a question about Steroids/HGH/what have you: My understanding is that while steroids will not magically turn you into a grotesque bag of muscles, they have been proven to help speed rehab/recovery from an injury, or to prevent certain injuries/wear and tear from happening. Is this completely off base? And if not, isn't that a huuuge advantage for prolonging a career/a player's peak? I understand that players always have and always will do whatever they possibly can to get any sort of advantage, but it seems like this would be a particularly useful tool to stay better for longer. e: Also, while taking steroids won't spontaneously start muscle growth, doesn't it become easier to gain more muscle mass given an intense workout regimen? gimme the lute fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2011 around 03:17 |
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:13 |
|
|
gimme the lute posted:At the risk of stepping into a minefield, I have a question about Steroids/HGH/what have you: Steroids don't keep you from getting hurt at all
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:17 |
|
|
Steroids are mostly used to allow for more strenuous workouts and faster recovery time. HGH is used for healing faster from injury. Neither will let you hit a fastball any better than you currently do. Which is why I find the arguments against silly. Modern medicine has gone a long way towards improving players health long term and things like that. Cortisone is a steroid that players have injected into ailing parts of their body since forever, with the pure goal of allowing that player to play. Playing more isn't really an advantage. Peoples problems with steroids is that they think it gives you a 95 mph fastball or lets you hit 500 ft home runs.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:17 |
|
|
Power isn't entirely a function of strength, but you'd have to be a delusional not to deny that it helps. Steroids probably had some effect on baseball but it's nebulous.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:33 |
|
|
I know this is a touchy subject so I'll stop making GBS threads up the thread after this post, but here goes:Nodoze posted:Steroids don't keep you from getting hurt at all Scoobi posted:Steroids are mostly used to allow for more strenuous workouts and faster recovery time. HGH is used for healing faster from injury. Neither will let you hit a fastball any better than you currently do. But, more importantly, I disagree that playing more isn't an advantage. Again, given that you're incredibly good, isn't reducing injury time (especially if you're injured in your peak years) one of the best ways to accumulate more counting stats and be a better player than you otherwise would have been? OdinsBeard posted:Power isn't entirely a function of strength, but you'd have to be a delusional not to deny that it helps. e: I feel the need to defend myself: I know that this whole issue was blown way out of proportion in the sports media world and in the court of public opinion. Barry Bonds was superhuman with or without steroids, and Joe Schmo the AAAA former prospect was more likely to use PEDs than any star player. But still, there has to be some measurable advantage to all this crap or it wouldn't have been so common, right? gimme the lute fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2011 around 03:38 |
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:36 |
|
|
As far as strictly the act of hitting (swinging the bat) goes, I'm pretty well convinced that anabolic steroids don't do much for you. The vast majority of your bat speed and power comes from your core and upper legs, and if the steroids and baseball website is correct and has legitimate medical references, the steroids don't typically build much muscle mass there. Bat speed is incredibly important. You're going to hit the ball further swinging a 33oz bat 120mph than a 35oz bat 100mph. There's also the thought that too much muscle mass could impede your swing. That's not to say that overall better physical fitness isn't productive for a hitter.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:42 |
|
|
gimme the lute posted:But still, there has to be some measurable advantage to all this crap or it wouldn't have been so common, right? You are talking about the same people who wear phiten necklaces and believe that they work as advertised. When you are fighting for a shot at your dream like these guys are you'll do anything that might help.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:48 |
|
|
Baseball is the ultimate Snake Oil sport. It's pretty well accepted that Babe Ruth used a corked bat, and corking a bat at best does pretty much nothing to how the bat reacts.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 03:53 |
|
|
Here are some vids that help explain how luck plays a part in baseball, and why things like ERA and batting average aren't the best stats to use in explaining certain phenomena http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuWoLBhnJ1g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggFArD4tffk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2AoGSJ8VI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8XEZlfwCT4
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:04 |
|
|
I missed out on the "Citoball" meme, can someone explain to me why Cito's managerial style was so despised/ironically revered?
R.D. Mangles fucked around with this message at Mar 8, 2011 around 04:17 |
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:15 |
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:I missed out on the "Citoball" meme, can someone explain to me why Cito's managerial style was so despised/ironically revered? Not sure on this but I think at the beginning of the year Cito had a great quote about "doing some crazy things to score runs," implying Ozzieball/smallball type poo poo, and then the Blue Jays just mashed solo home runs constantly. I think the Citoball moniker was mostly ironic.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:19 |
|
|
I am Bob posted:I haven't read Moneyball, but I plan on getting to it eventually, and is the upcoming film have any chance to be good? The book is great, and the movie has a good chance of being quality. Reasons? 1. The only major film that Bennett Miller (the director) ever did was Capote. This would be a bad thing if that was a lovely movie, but it was pretty great so I've got hope. 2. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Art Howe. This needs no explanation because it's too hilarious for words. 3. Brad Pitt is playing Billy Beane. We can only hope he'll be rearranging some furniture over one Jeremy Bonderman. 4. Jonah Hill is playing a skinny/nerdy Paul DePodesta (the character's name was changed to Peter Brand, because I'm sure Paul wanted nothing to do with it). Jonah Hill. Skinny guy. 5. Steve Zaillan (Schindler's List, Gangs of New York, American Gangster) and Aaron Sorkin (Aaron loving Sorkin) had their hands in writing the screenplay. So good director, good actors, great writers, and a great story. We're all going to be there on the Opening Night, and the movie's going to blow.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:19 |
|
|
R.D. Mangles posted:I missed out on the "Citoball" meme, can someone explain to me why Cito's managerial style was so despised/ironically revered? Citoball = gently caress walks swing first pitch all the time. Basically the Jays were incredibly aggressive guys who marked out on fastballs all the time. Consequently, they hit a poo poo ton of HRs but didn't score that many runs and struck out alot.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:21 |
|
|
Also a lot of people mistake the Citoball meme as referring to low BA and dingers, but it's actually low OBA and dingers. Adam Dunn is not citoball, but Alfonso Soriano and Juan Uribe are.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:24 |
|
|
Scoobi posted:Citoball = gently caress walks swing first pitch all the time. Which made everything very, very exciting. Even if you were on the wrong side of it you still got to see a shitload of TATERS which is pretty cool.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:26 |
|
|
Badfinger posted:As far as strictly the act of hitting (swinging the bat) goes, I'm pretty well convinced that anabolic steroids don't do much for you. I've never understood why people believe this. Sure, there are specific cases where steroids may not "do much for you" i.e. a guy who's already reached his peak natural strength level. But, IN GENERAL, the advantages of taking steroids are huge - even for hitting. While you claim most power comes from upper legs and core... I'd add that your upper-body still has a tremendous amount to do with it. Did you ever see McGwire's forearms? Or Brady Anderson's that one year he hit 50? Those things were MONSTROUS, dude. You ever hear the stories about the Babe's wrists? Sure, benching 500 pounds isn't going to make you hit bombs, but it certainly doesn't hurt (unless you're so inflexible you can't take a proper swing). Further, baseball is a griiiind. Not sure if you've ever played a full season, (I never even played 162 games), but it's tough to recover everyday and take the 100s of swings necessary to be an elite hitter. Steroids help tremendously in muscle recovery. In a sport where the slightest soreness can throw off your swing this is another big advantage day-in and day-out. You ever see that football movie (The Program?) with the 'roid rage guy doing 400lb power cleans between 2-a-day practices? Slight exaggeration... but seriously steroids do make a marked difference. And lastly, steroids not helping with upper leg/core muscle mass? Not sure where you get that idea. The biggest muscles in the human body are in your legs. Consequently, they reap the greatest benefits from steroids. The explosive compound movements in hitting are all a product of fast twitch muscle fibers that can be GREATLY enhanced through strength training and the proper PED cocktail. So at the end of the day. Are steroids going to make you instantly a great hitter? Not at all, there's SOOO much more to it. But, at the highest level where guys cork their bats for the slightest advantage - steroids are almost mandatory.
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:27 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 07:14 |
|
|
Scoobi posted:Citoball = gently caress walks swing first pitch all the time. Jays were 9th in MLB in runs, that isn't bad
|
| # ? Mar 8, 2011 04:30 |
|
