FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. What’s humorous is that the average fan has accepted sabermetrics at a level seemingly higher than that in some FO’s…

    Comment by alskor — April 3, 2009 @ 11:37 am

  2. That’s not my experience with the “average fan.” I think the FO’s of the MLB clubs are ahead of that particular curve. Yes, there are a couple of refuseniks, but most clubs get it on some level.

    Comment by Rob in CT — April 3, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

  3. I find that the “average fan” typically does not know much about sabermetrics and I think there are a lot of reasons why.

    It actually takes a lot of time to keep up with the advanced stats. They’re changing all the time, adding this and adding that.

    How many different versions are there of the Bill James Runs Created? 3-5? How many different versions are there of the non Bill James Run Estimators? Maybe 10, 15, who knows. Needless to say, there are a lot.

    What kind of casual fan has enough time to keep up with all that, and all the changes, and which one he should actually use?

    While I think all the progress and research is really great, it’s very hard for any of these new stats to become accepted in the mainstream while nothing remains constant and the names keep changing. This is something I think BP has done a really commendable job on with VORP.

    Getting stats into the mainstream is about a constant PR onslaught. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Comment by David Appelman — April 3, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

  4. I think the average fan has caught on to a degree, but it’s all about complexity.

    It’s a lot easier to explain why OPS / WHIP is important than it is to try to explain PECOTA.

    Comment by Bill — April 3, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

  5. Agreed with all of the above. While the majority of individuals who call themselves “baseball fans” (when given the alternative of “non-baseball fan”) will never identify themselves as saber-literate, this community is growing in size and, in my opinion (given as a recent “convert” of sorts to this line of analysis), will be a minority significant enough to make a difference not just across FO’s and in the sport but also in the media — primarily in the new realm but perhaps making notable headway in the old.

    Comment by Big Oil — April 3, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

  6. As the author of the original post, I can say that David understand what I was saying. Maybe mainstream was the wrong word (I didn’t put more than 15 seconds of thought into the title). The average fan, in my mind, isn’t sabermetrically-inclined, and the article was an inquiry into why that is.

    Comment by dan — April 3, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

  7. Something I think could really help with spreading it to the common fan is fantasy sports. For a large number of people, it’s their involvement in fantasy sports that leads them to get a handle on what’s going on with every team in the league, not just their own. If one of the major platforms (ESPN, Yahoo!, etc.) would introduce a “SABR League” (with, say, OBP, SLG, LD%, SB%, UZR for position players, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, On base against, GB/FB for pitchers), people playing would read up on the categories in order to gain a competitive edge in their leagues and in the process gain a better understanding of what makes players good. The popularity of fantasy sports was wildly underestimated in the 90s, but it could be harnessed to further spread advanced measures of performance to the common fan.

    Comment by Kevin S. — April 3, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

  8. This month’s ESPN the Magazine, the baseball preview edition, also has a big section on the rise of defense evaluation and how it’s changing the valuation of players in the game.

    Comment by Matthew Carruth — April 3, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

  9. The MLB network is even referencing Baseball Prospectus. In their 30 Teams in 30 Days series, they report where Baseball Prospectus expects the team to finish, then have their panel members discuss it.

    As for the baseball fans, I remember reading an item a number of years back about a study of sports fans by a sociologist. He came to the conclusion that there were three categories of fans: 1) Students of the game – I suspect that most who are interested in sabermetrics fall into this grouping. 2) Fans of a team – These are the folks who are fans of specific teams and aren’t particularly interested in other teams. These folks are probably a mixed bag. Some are probably “saber-literate”, others not. 3) Bandwagon jumpers – These are what some might call fair-weather fans, people who go to games and watch the team on TV when they’re winning. For a lot of these folks, it’s a social activity more than anything else, and I doubt that any of them know the first thing about sabermetrics. Now, whether one agrees with this grouping or not, one thing is clear. There is no typical fan, or average fan, but three or four, or whatever, different kinds of typical or average fans.

    Comment by ChuckO — April 3, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

  10. I’m not sure why, but I read this post in the voice of Jeffrey “the Big” Lebowski. Seemed fitting.

    “Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost.”

    Comment by MatthewA — April 3, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

  11. As I said in the original post, I think the current construction of Fantasy baseball leagues are preventing the spread of sabermetrics to the common fan. A league as you suggest in the comment, though, would be fantastic.

    Comment by dan — April 3, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

  12. For what it’s worth, my specific transition was arguably accelerated by fantasy baseball. I’ve been mostly the type of fan categorized as #2 by ChuckO below (having played baseball through hs/it being my favorite sport) and, in combination with understanding the value of obp (vis a vis how a decade ago it was overlooked by media as a traditional statistic metric worthy of pointing out), obtaining a fantasy edge through analysis of LD, BB, K%, BABIP, ISO for batters has helped me select a better team.

    As far as rooting for my own team goes (Nats), it was evidence for Bowden’s incompetence (as if the on-field product wasn’t; of course, these are reflections of one another) and further a general blueprint for achieving success given a talented front office. As the Rays, A’s and others have shown, it can be done — this makes the game all the more exciting now rather than unsubstantiated feelings of “hope” held by teams’ fanbases at large.

    Comment by Big Oil — April 3, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

  13. For me, it’s a mixed blessing. I have enjoyed knowing and learning this information almost exclusively from everyone I know in the ‘real world.’ Now that the likes of Brandon Funston and Matthew Berry reference elements of sabermettrics, it has begun to filter down to the Average Joes. The selfish part of me wants it stay exclusive. I need to stop being an elitist.

    Comment by Darryl — April 3, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

  14. This argument isn’t valid; just because one can sort fans into a small number of groups doesn’t imply that one can’t speak of a fan with an “average” level of understanding. As a counter example I could say that some people believe that string theory is 26-dimensional, some would say its 10-dimensional, and some don’t know enough about it to hold either opinion. The final group is 99% of the population, and it represents the average understanding, not just 1/3 of the listed groups.

    My guess would be that the average fan is still mostly in the dark about the power of statistical analysis, but also I agree with Dave in that there are good signs in the popular media, and that the number of fans who are SABR-literate is likely growing.

    Comment by Russell — April 3, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

  15. Woah…Dave, you just blew me away: A sports article in the Wall Street Journal, about the Oakland A’s of all teams, about unknown pitchers, written by a (previously) Seattle Mariners blogger. I’d say things have changed pretty significantly.

    Comment by Dan — April 3, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

  16. I think Dave Cameron is half right in this post.

    Five years ago, you couldn’t say “The statistical analysts say that so and so” and have anyone listen. Now, what the statistical analyst thinks is taken seriously. The average fan doesn’t know why the analyst thinks these things, but the fact that he does is now meaningful. That’s a big change in the reception of sabermetrics.

    However, we’re still a few years away from the point when announcers are talking about OPS instead of batting average and the typical fan (1) knows what this means and (2) knows why it’s more meaningful than BA.

    Comment by philosofool — April 3, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

  17. I blame the BWAA. They promote Triple crown starts in determining the value of players. They practically ignore OBP, defense and position, all of which are much more important than RBI’s. If the mainstreem fans see that Howard got 300+ votes, they will think that he had an excellent season. So they look at his stats, see the high RBIs and HRs and think that is what makes a good player.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — April 3, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

  18. The fantasy sports thing is interesting. While it might be ideal to have a league that used things like wOBA and UZR and FIP or tRA (in the sense of using stats that most accurately reflect a player’s true value), I think using those stats would detract from the fantasy experience for most players.

    For one thing (and I think this is the biggest thing), there’s a certain disconnect between those advanced stats and what actually happens on the field. One of the things I like about fantasy sports is that I can sit down and watch a game and figure out exactly how each player performed for fantasy purposes purely through observation. I don’t know how much wOBA a double is worth or how much UZR a nice catch is or how an inning of groundballs affects a pitcher’s tRA.

    Also, I like using relatively simple stats for fantasy purposes because they’re accessible to all while allowing players to research to whatever depth they want. Factoring a player’s teammates or park or spot in the batting order for stats like RBI and ERA is fun too.

    Comment by Milendriel — April 3, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

  19. Sure it’s valid. Talking about an overall average of everyone is simpler and sometimes gets the job done, but it is much more enlightening to see how further classifications break down and how the populations of each group relate to each other if you have the capabilities to make such comparisons. We can discuss how the number of fans in the first group is growing or shrinking compared to the others, for example, and see how prevalent each grouping is, and in general get a lot more useful information for our discussion. It would be like if you wanted to discuss views of string theory, to use your example: your method is liable to lead us to the conclusion that it is insignificant and doesn’t matter, and that there is just one very small segment of the population concerning themselves with such things. That may be a valid conclusion to reach, but there is also a wealth of valid information in the other approach as well, and often it will be much more interesting and useful to look at all the groups and how they compare to each other: what types of people tend to fit into each group, what kind of movement between views is there, how do the 26-D proponents compare to the 10-D proponents, and where do each of these fit into the general population? Which theory is picking up more support in the established scientific community?

    Both ways are valid for different things, but his way offers deeper insight into the issue and can lead to a much better understanding of the same conclusions. It’s simply a less limited approach to the same issue, with the trade off that it is more complicated and takes more work to get something out of it. That doesn’t make it not valid.

    Comment by Kincaid — April 3, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

  20. If you really want to make the point that sabermetrics have entered the mainstream, shouldn’t there be better examples than an article pointing out that Oakland has a really inexperienced rotation? Not that that’s not interesting, but it’s hardly a prime example of sabermetric work, and if that’s where the mainstream is, it still has a long way to go to really embrace sabermetrics.

    Comment by Kincaid — April 3, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

  21. Has it crossed anyone’s mind that the average fan just doesn’t care?

    Everyone can appreciate a Van Gogh, but there’s one percent that’ll understand the history, and another one percent that’ll understand the composition. The other 98 percent just look at the painting and are at least intrigued by it.

    Same goes for baseball, 1 percent look at history and 1 percent at ‘why’. The majority of people just enjoy cheering. If you analyze anything too much, you’re bound to ruin it by removing the mystery/innocence. The average baseball fan just wants to come home and enjoy a game, they don’t want to know why something happens.

    They judge a player based on experience, not statistics. This is why we have favorite teams, and favorite players. Baseball is a past time, and the majority of the population will view it as such.

    It’s not a dumbed-down version, it’s a past time. Think of any past-time and it’ll avoid in-depth analysis. There’ll always be avenues for in-depth analysis, but for the most part — People want to shut their brain off.

    Comment by kris — April 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

  22. A lot of people judge players on stats. A lot more than 1%. That is clearly evident by Fantasy Baseball and the ridiculous amount of stat-based blogs on the internet. The problems is that people are using the wrong statistics to value players, and that leads to a lot of stupid conclusions.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — April 3, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

  23. Um, that’s not really how I meant invalid; I meant that the conclusion “There is no typical fan, or average fan, but three … different kinds of typical or average fans.” doesn’t follow from the premise that there are “…three categories of fans.” This is obviously a circular argument.

    Now if the claim had been that there exist 3 categories of fans AND each is equally represented, then it would be a valid argument, though it may or may not be true. I would guess that fan-knowledge is normally distributed and that the average fan watches a few dozen games a year and thinks AVG/HR/RBI are telling offensive statistics, and that SABR-literate fans are outside the first standard deviation. Though A) I’m just guessing and B) “fans” are a self selected group so even if we define what “SABR-literate” means we still might have selection bias problems.

    While I’d agree that comparing groups within a population can be a useful tool for inference, it can also be highly misleading. Essentially, what you suggesting is drawing conclusions from stereotypes–which can be helpful, but can lead one astray. (As to your concern about my string theory example: Appeal To The Masses is a fallacy, and also invalid.)

    Comment by Russell — April 4, 2009 @ 1:00 am

  24. Have to disagree. With the caveat that I live in the Northeast and have a law degree and most of my friends are pretty intelligent… it seems like most average fans I know have a basic understanding of fundamental sabrmetric principles, which is a far cry from a decade back when I first read Bill James.

    Maybe its a Red Sox fan thing… but most people I talk to about baseball understand or have heard of these terms and for the most part dont eschew them like some MLB front offices (what I was referencing above). Maybe they dont know how to apply them correctly and couldnt explain them, but they know these things exist and what they measure (for the most part)… Walk through Fenway and ask people what VORP means and I guarantee the majority could tell you and a large percentage could go a lot further.

    Look at the way average fans know OPS and value OBP these days. You would get a blank stare 15 years ago. Its seeping in faster than you guys are giving it credit for…

    Comment by alskor — April 4, 2009 @ 1:35 am

  25. Further… the opposition to these ideas has failed. Even sportswriters are giving up the fight. 15 years ago there was a large amount of conventional wisdom that mocked the sabrmetric revolution.

    Now, even people who dont understand it will give it their attention. They accept that these ideas are fundamentally correct even if they dont fully understand how they work.

    The groundswell in favor of sabrmetric thought has blossomed. There now exists a sort of recognition and acceptance that sabrmetrics are the future and that they are important. The arguments for old time baseball though and old time scouting instead of stats (NOTE: Not with!) are fading. Even the hardline, old school baseball people have accepted that Bill James is the future, whether they like it or not.

    Comment by alskor — April 4, 2009 @ 1:40 am

  26. I see major progress towards advanced statistics becoming accepted. However I don’t feel like it is anywhere near mainstream. I think one of the things that is blocking adv. stats from being heard is because of old school ex-players. It’s hard to get our work out there when baseball “experts” Harold Reynolds and Joe Morgan (just to name of few, there are a ton) are calling us nerds on national broadcasts.

    Another thing most televised games don’t even show the player’s OBP when a batter comes up to the plate. We have a ways to go, but we are making progress.

    Comment by brian recca — April 4, 2009 @ 2:58 am

  27. Sabermetrics have replaced the back of the baseball card and frankly baseball cards are too expensive these days for even adults to risk actually touching without a protective covering let along for kids to glory over piles of them.

    If an analytical voice rejects sabermetrics these days, they become increasingly ignored themselves.

    The battle is over with the only irony being sabermetrics are likely to exalt truly skilled scouts.

    Comment by Terry — April 4, 2009 @ 8:15 am

  28. If you are a White Sox fan, the team seems to defy sabermetrics, maybe we are the exception that proves the rule. In 2005, they won many more games than the Pythagorean calculation would suggest, most statistics said they would do poorly in 2008, and most projections have the same again for this year. So as a long time fan, I’d rather enjoy myself, root for the team, instead of worrying about Gavin Floyd’s projected bad year because he had an unusually low BABIP last year.

    Comment by HLT — April 5, 2009 @ 10:24 am

  29. ESPN is using WPA. My mind almost melted.

    Comment by Kevin S. — April 6, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

  30. Sunday night baseball last night had OPS on the batter’s stat line. Not sure if they had it every time a batter came up to the place, but I definitely noticed it. I don’t think there was any discussion by Morgan and co however.

    Comment by dmurph — May 4, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

  31. We still cannot sleep until John Kruk and Steve Phillips are sitting next to Rob Neyer on Baseball Tonight, while we proceed to see Karl Ravech thanking God for finally giving him a competant co-worker.

    Comment by Joe R — May 8, 2009 @ 9:14 am

  32. Although it was recently shelved, a film adaptation of Moneyball to be directed by Steven Soderberg with Brad Pitt cast as Billy Beane and featuring many of the Oakland A’s cast to play themselves was in the works.

    Sabermetrics + Brad Pitt = Mainstream!

    Comment by Lucid Judas — July 28, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

  33. There was 2007, though, and it’s not like the White Sox don’t have Dye, Konerko, Thome, and Quentin now.

    And Beckham.

    Comment by Joe R — July 31, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

  34. No way. Tons of people still can’t grasp the fact that a guy that goes .250/.400/.470 with 25 HR and 180 K’s is better than someone that goes .310/.350/.390 with 3 HR and 50 K’s. I just saw on someone say Youkilis’ “strikes out too much”.

    Ya know, the guy who gets on base over 40% of the time. That Kevin Youkilis.

    Youkilis for Cristian Guzman straight up probably sounds good to some people.

    Comment by Joe R — July 31, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

  35. I think there’s alot of anti-intellectualism in the baseball media however the sabrmetric community shoots itself in the foot by not creating a more formalized structure to organize its information so at the very least you know where to start if your interested. It like snow blindness but with information. I have a calculus background, with some probability and set theory as well as classical mechanics and i think that this should suffice to understand sabrmetrics so why i am i feeling confused. There’s a whole lot of information and little explaination. It really would help to have tutorials on how to read these graphs.

    Comment by j reed — August 1, 2009 @ 5:16 am

  36. I mean to say “There’s a whole lot of information and little explanation of the basics.”
    While in chat rooms I’ve encountered people who like me are interested and question traditional baseball stats but are put of by this same issue of finding a good place to start: it seems you’ll find things that are too basic or to complicated. It’s alot like books on operating systems, either its way to simple or its for people who are look to become mircosoft certified.

    Comment by j reed — August 1, 2009 @ 6:04 am

  37. How much of a stat-head do you want the “average” fan to be? If most people could just get it through their heads that a SP’s W-L record isn’t really a very good indicator of how well he pitches, or that a guy who walks 100+ times in a season actually has a pretty good eye no matter how much he strikes out, I’ll be very happy. If they can grok BABIP, PECOTA and wOBA, hey, that’s gravy.

    I blame the media. Case in point: This fall, I saw Vlad Guerrero practically fall to his knees to swing at a pitch 6 inches off the ground. In fact, the ball hit the ground in front of home plate. He wound up getting a single. Good for Vlad, but the fact that he still even went for it is a perfect encapsulation of why Guerrero isn’t as dangerous a hitter as some people think. He simply can’t get it through his head that there is something called a strike zone. Of course, the TV guys could not stop talking about why that completely flukey base hit was actually an indicator of how godlike and awesome Vlad is. Gimme a freakin’ break. I think MLB Network should promote the SABR game of the week, and hire color guys who can break down the deep stats and explain them. If you can explain bloody quantum mechanics to a layman, you can sure as hell do it with sabrmetrics.

    But, look at Earl Weaver, one of the deities of the moneyballistas. Weaver probably couldn’t have figured out a standard deviation if you put a gun to his head, but he still grasped the apparently still heretical concept that giving your opponents a free out usually did more harm than good. Some of the same journalists and TV guys who piss and moan about sabrmetrics think Weaver was awesome, without understanding that he was the first guy who really practiced the kind of strategies that they whine about us for supporting.

    Comment by lazlo_toth — December 2, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  38. Those ’70 Orioles actually did have 64 sac hits, right around the AL per team of 68. Shockingly, despite everything, the 2009 NL average SH per team is 71, about the same as 40 years ago (74).

    The AL’s SH total is down since the first year of the DH, though.

    But yes, Weaver understood what the “geeks” are talking about. He wasn’t perfect (he batted Mark Belanger 2nd), but he got baseball.

    The irony is, most fans get exactly what we’re talking about, but are so indoctrinated still by what they’ve been told defines value for years, that they manipulate their very thought process to fit it. Take J.D. Drew, a .390 OBP, 20-25 HR player. Sounds pretty good, right? Well most people would agree.

    But, he doesn’t have a high RBI total. Therefore, his contributions are trivial. Who actually thinks Clint Barmes is a better hitter than J.D. Drew? But a simple, team-dependent stat still carries a lot of weight to a lot of people.

    Another example, Mark Reynolds. 44 Home runs, .290 EqA, very Howard-like batting line. But, he strikes out a lot. Regardless of evidence that a strikeout isn’t much difference than a regular out (and that Reynolds’ RE24 is higher than his wRAA, actually, meaning he did produce situationally), people frown on him, not for making more outs than most, but for how he makes them. Why? Because the powers that be tell them it’s bad. Or maybe because their little league coach would get on them for striking out and they have deep rooted mental issues. Who knows.

    Comment by JoeR43 — December 2, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

  39. I think in the last year I have heard more stupid blathering about strikeouts and what they mean or don’t mean than I ever have, and it make my head hurt. Striking out 100 times isn’t good. Just how un-good it is depends on whatever else is going on with that player, period. Is he getting walked 125 times and hitting .270 with 40 HR? Then screw it, go ahead and strike out 100 times. I’ll give you David Eckstein for that player straight up. And some of these nimrods would probably take it, since Tim McCarver likes the guy and says he’s “scrappy.” And since Tim McCarver caught Bob Gibson and gets paid to talk about baseball on TV, he must be right…

    You mentioned RBI. That and W-L for pitchers are probably the most infuriating numbers for me because they just don’t mean anywhere near as much as people like to think and it is impossible to explain this. They’re deceptively easy and give the illusion of being extremely significant. I’ve been trying for years to get my roto leagues to accept QS instead of W as a category, not because QS is all that great a stat, but it says a lot more about how the pitcher actually did and you don’t need a lick of run support. This year I’m going to try to sell them on wOBA instead of Avg.

    Comment by lazlo_toth — December 3, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

  40. On Weaver:
    You can’t look at those raw SH stats without looking at opportunities. The O’s were also among the league leaders in OBP during many of those Weaver years, so if you look st SH per sacrifice opportunity, you’ll see Weaver was among the lowest in the league, not the average.

    Less than 1/3rd of Belanger’s PAs came in the leadoff or second slot. If you followed Weaver closely, you know that these generally came when Belanger was hitting better or when facing a LHP, where Belanger was better (if still not very good).

    Comment by GTWMA — January 1, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

  41. they said WAR on Sportscenter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    Comment by jpdtrmpt72 — January 10, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

  42. The topic of sabermetrics is “going weird” on me. The extreme is becoming the face of the term/topic. Sabermetrics, by definition, is the unemotional (some say objective), statistical analysis of player performance (or something close). I mean who, other than a few “feeling in my gut” guys, could oppose that?

    NOW, it seems that sabermetrics only includes the most complex, least understood, metrics out there. The extreme has become the face of the term/topic. It’s ridiculous that we allow this to happen, because it retards or impedes the acceptance of sabermetrics.

    [1] The big reason that people oppose or ignore it is that the don’t see the point in it. Why accept something new when ERA and RBIs have worked fine for so long? Supporters of the movement, need to better advocates and ambassadors. Please, don’t be one of the guys that puts the ASS in Ambassador. See #2.

    [2] Secondly, and I just mentioned it, are the sabermaticians themselves. Perhaps it’s not the “sabermaticians” that are the obstacle, but the guys that “think they are” or “wish they were”. Sabermaticians could do a MUCH better job being educators rather than obstacles for the acceptance movement. Tom Tango … genius. The guys repeating what TT said in The Book, not so much genius. Get it?

    Being more familiar with a topic than someone else, doesn’t make you “smarter” than them …. right?

    [3] Thirdly, the ever changing metrics. Good God folks … come to some sort of consensus already. Like religion, you can’t have 9,385 different factions, all touting something different and expect people to take it seriously. Unite the message, trim down the metrics to the most relevant, humble your tone (explain to folks how a new metric is better, now how they are dumb for clinging to traditional metrics, see?), and educate the masses on the HANDFUL (not cargo van full) of the best metrics to evaluate a player’s/team’s performance.

    I searched for player statistic evaluation systems the other day, and uncovered about 38 different “systems”. People aren’t going to learn 18 different versions of ERA. UNDERSTAND that. OPS is gaining popularity because it’s ONE metric that combines two metrics that people were already familiar.

    Less is more sometimes. Occassionally, I think some sabermaticians (or the wanna-bes) are out there creating new crap just so they have something “all to themselves” or have some sort of the market cornered (as if anyone else wanted). Trim the fat, lower the temperature of the discussion, watch sabermetrics grow like crazy. Baseball fans LOVE the numbers … give them what they WANT in quantities that they can handle. You will have made baseball fandom a better place. Well done.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — January 11, 2010 @ 12:05 am

  43. Need to subscribe to this blog, great post. Found it on bing.

    Comment by PSP — March 20, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

  44. I agree, they’ve definitively gone mainstream.

    Comment by Free Mac — July 3, 2011 @ 11:25 am

  45. Outstanding article it is without doubt. Friend on mine has been looking for this tips.

    Comment by sport — October 25, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

0.085 Powered by WordPress