Power Rankings!
by Luke in MN on Feb 18, 2010 10:00 AM EST
49 comments
I thought I'd share the results of some of my latest baseball nerding sessions. The rankings are after the jump.
Here's my methodology. I've constructed 25-man rosters for each of the teams. On the offensive side, each position player gets a % of expected plate appearances (e.g., 11% for a star near the top of the lineup, maybe 2-5% for a bench player), and then, if I think appropriate, a +/- of a percentage point or three for "platoon" players (e.g., Kubel will see more PA vs. RHP and Harris more against LHP). The idea is to try to tune the lineup for pitcher handedness like the manager likely would. Using PECOTA projections with added adjustments for each player's projected splits vs. RHP and LHP, I calculate a team OPS versus RHP and one versus LHP and 2 corresponding runs-scored figures against a neutral opponent.
Each team then gets assigned 5 starting pitchers and 7 relievers, and a corresponding team ERA for each of the 5 starters based on their expected average number of innings pitched, with the 7 relievers covering an equal share of the remaining innings. I then figure defense for the team (based just on the 8 starting position players, from CHONE) and figure team runs allowed.
The 3 best projected relievers on each team get special consideration as high-leverage pitchers (since teams with excellent closers and setup men will tend to win more games than their RS/RA figures indicate). This results in an adjustment of usually less than a percentage point in team win percentage (highest: Dodgers: +1.2%, lowest: Astros: -.067%).
The first set of rankings are power rankings pitting each team against the same neutral opponent in a neutral run environment. The second set, the divisional rankings, are actual simulations of each team's 162-game schedule, pitting each team and its 5 starting-pitcher squads against a randomly assigned series of starters from the actual teams they'll face this season. So the second set reflects each team's strength of schedule, as well as the handedness of pitchers they are likely to face and their corresponding OPS splits. Since starting pitchers are randomly assigned here, there is a little "play" in the rankings; each team's projected wins might adjust by +/- half a game or so based on how lucky they get with opposing starters.
I'm sure this isn't a perfect projection system, but I think it has its strengths, and I have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to hear where people think it's about right and where it's off wildly. Awesome.
| Rank | Team | RSvRHP | RSvLHP | RS | RS rank | RA | RA rank | Def | Def Rank | Win% | W | L |
| 1 | Boston Redsox | 5.22 | 5.34 | 5.25 | 4 | 3.90 | 1 | 35 | 1 | 0.60 | 96.9 | 65.1 |
| 2 | New York Yankees | 5.61 | 5.38 | 5.54 | 1 | 4.26 | 6 | -7 | 17 | 0.58 | 94.0 | 68.0 |
| 3 | Tampa Bay Rays | 5.29 | 5.52 | 5.36 | 3 | 4.26 | 5 | 15 | 7 | 0.56 | 91.2 | 70.8 |
| 4 | Saint Louis Cardinals | 5.19 | 5.36 | 5.24 | 5 | 4.19 | 2 | 32 | 2 | 0.55 | 89.6 | 72.4 |
| 5 | Minnesota Twins | 5.46 | 5.15 | 5.37 | 2 | 4.49 | 16 | 3 | 11 | 0.55 | 88.8 | 73.2 |
| 6 | Los Angeles Dodgers | 4.91 | 5.20 | 4.99 | 14 | 4.33 | 7 | -11 | 21 | 0.53 | 86.2 | 75.8 |
| 7 | Texas Rangers | 5.13 | 5.24 | 5.16 | 8 | 4.40 | 12 | 17 | 5 | 0.53 | 85.8 | 76.2 |
| 8 | Philladelphia Phillies | 5.16 | 5.07 | 5.14 | 9 | 4.35 | 8 | 13 | 9 | 0.53 | 85.4 | 76.6 |
| 9 | Atlanta Braves | 4.98 | 4.97 | 4.97 | 15 | 4.38 | 10 | -4 | 14 | 0.52 | 84.4 | 77.6 |
| 10 | Colorado Rockies | 5.04 | 4.93 | 5.01 | 13 | 4.38 | 11 | 14 | 8 | 0.52 | 84.3 | 77.7 |
| 11 | Seattle Mariners | 4.86 | 4.93 | 4.88 | 18 | 4.21 | 3 | 29 | 3 | 0.51 | 83.3 | 78.7 |
| 12 | Oakland Athletics | 4.88 | 4.74 | 4.83 | 21 | 4.24 | 4 | 19 | 4 | 0.51 | 83.1 | 78.9 |
| 13 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 4.95 | 4.98 | 4.96 | 16 | 4.44 | 14 | -9 | 19 | 0.51 | 82.0 | 80.0 |
| 14 | Cincinnati Reds | 4.76 | 4.83 | 4.78 | 23 | 4.37 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 0.50 | 80.5 | 81.5 |
| 15 | Baltimore Orioles | 5.15 | 5.29 | 5.19 | 7 | 4.76 | 26 | 3 | 11 | 0.49 | 80.0 | 82.0 |
| 16 | Milwaukee Brewers | 5.12 | 5.39 | 5.20 | 6 | 4.78 | 27 | -10 | 20 | 0.49 | 79.8 | 82.2 |
| 17 | San Francisco Giants | 4.67 | 5.01 | 4.77 | 24 | 4.40 | 13 | -22 | 29 | 0.49 | 79.5 | 82.5 |
| 18 | New York Mets | 4.92 | 5.26 | 5.02 | 10 | 4.66 | 21 | -5 | 15 | 0.49 | 78.9 | 83.1 |
| 19 | Detroit Tigers | 4.56 | 5.19 | 4.75 | 26 | 4.49 | 15 | 16 | 6 | 0.48 | 78.4 | 83.6 |
| 20 | Los Angeles Angels | 4.96 | 5.14 | 5.02 | 12 | 4.71 | 23 | -20 | 27 | 0.48 | 78.1 | 83.9 |
| 21 | Chicago Cubs | 4.69 | 5.22 | 4.85 | 19 | 4.55 | 18 | -15 | 25 | 0.48 | 77.7 | 84.3 |
| 22 | Florida Marlins | 4.94 | 5.21 | 5.02 | 11 | 4.75 | 25 | -20 | 27 | 0.47 | 76.6 | 85.4 |
| 23 | Chicago White Sox | 4.59 | 4.87 | 4.67 | 29 | 4.53 | 17 | -12 | 23 | 0.47 | 76.5 | 85.5 |
| 24 | Kansas City Royals | 4.77 | 4.74 | 4.76 | 25 | 4.65 | 20 | -18 | 26 | 0.46 | 75.3 | 86.7 |
| 25 | Washington Nationals | 4.85 | 4.84 | 4.84 | 20 | 4.74 | 24 | -1 | 13 | 0.46 | 74.6 | 87.4 |
| 26 | San Diego Padres | 4.70 | 4.64 | 4.68 | 28 | 4.63 | 19 | -8 | 18 | 0.46 | 74.2 | 87.8 |
| 27 | Cleveland Indians | 5.01 | 4.77 | 4.94 | 17 | 4.88 | 29 | -11 | 21 | 0.45 | 73.7 | 88.3 |
| 28 | Houston Astros | 4.63 | 4.94 | 4.72 | 27 | 4.69 | 22 | -6 | 16 | 0.45 | 72.8 | 89.2 |
| 29 | Toronto Blue Jays | 4.75 | 4.94 | 4.81 | 22 | 4.86 | 28 | -24 | 30 | 0.44 | 71.8 | 90.2 |
| 30 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 4.59 | 4.52 | 4.57 | 30 | 4.93 | 30 | -14 | 24 | 0.41 | 66.5 | 95.5 |
| Wins | Losses | ||
| AL East | Red Sox | 95.9 | 66.1 |
| Yankees | 92.3 | 69.7 | |
| Rays | 89.9 | 72.1 | |
| Orioles | 76.4 | 85.6 | |
| Blue Jays | 67.9 | 94.1 | |
| AL Central | Twins | 89.1 | 72.9 |
| Tigers | 77.8 | 84.2 | |
| White Sox | 76.7 | 85.3 | |
| Royals | 75.3 | 86.7 | |
| Indians | 73.2 | 88.8 | |
| AL West | Rangers | 86.1 | 75.9 |
| mariners | 81.2 | 80.8 | |
| athletics | 82.0 | 80.0 | |
| Angels | 75.8 | 86.2 | |
| NL East | Braves | 87.0 | 75.0 |
| Phillies | 86.1 | 75.9 | |
| Mets | 79.2 | 82.8 | |
| Marlins | 77.8 | 84.2 | |
| Nationals | 75.3 | 86.7 | |
| NL Central | Cardinals | 92.8 | 69.2 |
| Reds | 82.6 | 79.4 | |
| Brewers | 80.9 | 81.1 | |
| Cubs | 79.6 | 82.4 | |
| Astros | 74.1 | 87.9 | |
| Pirates | 66.9 | 95.1 | |
| NL West | Dodgers | 87.3 | 74.7 |
| Rockies | 85.2 | 76.8 | |
| Diamondbacks | 82.7 | 79.3 | |
| Giants | 79.1 | 82.9 | |
| Padres | 75.1 | 86.9 |
0 recs |
49 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice
I like it. Seems about right too…both projections had the Twins at 89-73. I can dig that.
fun
obviously I like any system that shows the Twins winning by 11 games!
I like the idea of comparing absolute power rankings to simulated division races. You might want to run the division ones more times though. Up top you have the Braves as worse than the Phillies in runs scored, runs allowed, and fielding — basically everything — but then they win the division. Is there schedule really that much easier, or did they just happen to do well in that particular run?
interesting how much you see the Angels dropping off — near the bottom in pitching and fielding.
and interesting how close you see the NL west, which I agree will be one of the most interesting races all year — you’ve got the top 4 teams within 8 games of each other, and that seems plausible — I really could see any of them winning it.
Re: phillies/braves
That was an interesting catch i hadn’t really noticed it, but I think it’s legit. The Philles are a significantly better hitting team and just a slightly worse run-prevention team, but they have a much worse high-leverage bullpen arm score—losing about half a percent on their win percentage, while the Braves gain .86 of a percent—so the Braves end up being very close in support-neutral win %.
AND, the Braves do have an easier schedule. Their opponents look to score on average 4.91 runs, while the Phillies’ will score about 5 runs (opponent RA is about the same). That’s about 15 runs the Phillies will have to deal with the Braves won’t. I suspect the difference is interleague. The Braves face the Twins, Rays, Royals, White Sox, and Tigers. The Phillies face the Red Sox, Yankees, Twins, Indians, and Blue Jays.
"just slightly worse run-prevention team"
Check that, should be “slightly better.”
Re: Angels
Yeah, I really have them burried at the bottom of a short, tough division. They were only a mediocre run-prevention team last year, and they lost their best starter (lackey) and best defender (Figgins). They lost one of their best offensive players too (Figgins; Vlad for Hideki = about a wash) and PECOTA sees regression for some of their other big offensive performers last year, like Hunter and Morales. CHONE has their defense as a little below average at almost all positions (even CF; sorry Torii—personally, I wouldn’t do that to you). Oh yeah, and everyone else in the division got better.
Frankly, except for the fact that we’re conditioned to expect them to win, I’m not sure what to get too excited about. I have seen others put them higher though, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
Re: Twins
I do have a nice margin for the Twins. I defend it, and I really try to be fair about making out the lineups, etc., but if you think I’m a bit biased, I’ll understand.
A couple ways the system may favor the Twins a bit:
Runs scored are based entirely on OPS, which does correlate very highly with runs scored, but it’s not perfect. It entirely ignores stolen bases, and if you think Ozzie is going all reverse-piranha-style on us you might see the division being a bit closer. Stolen bases certainly don’t figure to be a Twins strength.
CHONE’s outfield defense projections for Delmon and Cuddyer call for blessed, blessed regression toward the mean (-6 and -7), which would be a big improvement on last year. Also, I don’t count bench defense at all, which also doesn’t figure to be a Twins strength.
Finally, I may understand (or think I understand) the way the Twins will platoon their lineup a little better than I do other teams and therefore be a little more generous with +/- versus RHP/LHP than with other teams.
That said, these things are small potatoes. The Twins are going to dominate this division.
OPS also overvalues slugging as compared to OBP
I don’t think that would hurt us, though, we were 5th in the league in OBP last year, and only 9th in SLG. A team like the Phillies, however, who has a relatively high slugging (or did last year at least) and low OBP, will be overvalued.
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Feb 18, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
That's true
But when it comes to predicting runs scored, OPS comes amazingly close to the sexier all-inclusive metrics out there. It’s sort of awesomely predictive, considering what a weird, cobbled together stat it is (I found this cool article on it a while ago: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ops-for-the-masses/). It’s also much easier to find and to work with than the proprietary formulas.
I’d also guess that at a team level, projected relationships between OBP and SLG will be really, really similar. I could be wrong though, so maybe I’ll take a look.
Rangers
Are they really projected to win their division?
That raised my eyebrows.
Also I think the TIger’s pitching is too good for them to be 6 – 7 games under .500
Re: Tigers
Nice catch, I think you’re actually right about this one. PECOTA has a really pessimistic projection for Porcello, which I don’t think anyone expects (ERA-4.83). They point out in their annual that his minor league numbers are basically useless for comparison since he was working on pitches, etc., but PECOTA probably uses them anyway. It seems way off, but I didn’t mess with any of the projections, even the ones I disagreed with.
But Porcello aside, Detroit’s back-end starters and bullpen are kind of weak. Oh, and don’t underestimate how much their offense sucks.
PECOTA
is just down that Porcello is no longer 20 years old, he’s over the hill and washed up now.
I think Detroit’s top 3 pitchers are pretty good and good enough to keep them in games. I would be surprised if they finished that far below .500.
by the way
if you recall, and this according to TBS telecasts, Porcello was in fact 20 years old last year
The Hochevar Principle: The future comes to all teams. Some teams wait for it. Those teams finish in last place a lot. -Joe Posnanski
by DaTwins on Feb 18, 2010 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Porcello will have a down year
Way too many innings last year. An innings bump from 2008 of almost 50%. He’ll get off to a fast start, then start suffering from dead arm in July. I project an even record, an ERA of around 5 and 150 innings.
Trust me. This is one of those predictive tools that is almost always right. When a guy increases his innings load by more than 30% from one year to the next, he struggles with dead arm the following year. The higher the percentage increase, the more the struggles. Last year, Glen Perkins and Francisco Liriano were the guys on the Twins who had this problem.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
And
worst of all (well best of all for us) hes not 20 anymore. Such a shame to see these guys growing up so fast these days.
I love Twins Baseball and Minnesota Vikings Football.
by Percy Harvin My Fav! on Feb 18, 2010 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
Once you turn 21, you're spoiled meat
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Useless, really.
RonGarde: Target Field is going to be exactly like Progressive Field, except you'll have a chance to die of frostbite in the middle of July
Re: Rangers
Man, another nice catch. I don’t think I’m the only one with the Rangers on top, but a couple big caveats. One, PECOTA loves Rich Harden, and the way I do things, every starting pitcher who makes my top 5 starters is treated equally. No injury/durability concerns factored in at all.
Second, there’s this guy named Colby Lewis who I have as their 5th starter. He’s 30, seems to have no significant major league success to his name, but for some reason is given a very good ERA in my PECOTA spreadsheet. It might be because PECOTA projects him as a reliever, but whatever the case, his ERA number is surely way too low.
actually, it's japanese league translations
Colby added a cutter in Japan and had huge success. PECOTA is using the japanese league equivalent of minor league translations to arrive at Colby’s ERA.
by Jon Kammerer on Feb 19, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
Ah, cool
So maybe it makes some sense after all. Thanks for pointing that out.
My main complaint is the Mariners
With their pitching and defense, they should win 90 games in 2010. Very few projection systems adequately account for defense, especially outfield defense. It’s why the Twins outplayed their projects for so many years in the 00s.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Good test run
It’s always fun seeing a good algorithm created to manufacture predictive results. On the whole it seems good.
My only argument is that there is too much parity amongst teams in the middle to the bottom. There were 5 teams last season that won 65 games or less. Your projections don’t have one.
Teams like the Astros, Nationals, Padres and Indians are all likely to finish worse than this projection…possibly much worse. Take the Royals for instance. I think the argument can be made that their team actually declined from last year. The only way these guys win 75 games is if they get to play the Padres, Pirates, Astros, Cubs and Nationals in interleague AND Greinke goes 32-0.
On the opposite side, teams like the Marlins, Mariners, Giants for sure and probably the White Sox, Tigers and Brewers should be up a little in wins from where they are. Even the Yankees probably deserve more than 92.3 wins.
Still, I like it as a whole and it seems to work well. These grievances are likely due to projections. I would be interested in seeing how these standings come out plugging James or Marcel (or perhaps even fans) projections into the same algorithm.
by PinkiePinkerton on Feb 18, 2010 3:13 PM EST reply actions
Mediocrity
My only argument is that there is too much parity amongst teams in the middle to the bottom. There were 5 teams last season that won 65 games or less. Your projections don’t have one.
I think this is probably to be expected due to the tools he’s using. PECOTA and the like do a lot of regression to the mean and don’t generally predict outliers, positive or negative. Especially bad teams will often have injuries or players having unexpectedly subpar years, and projection systems don’t catch those. Likewise, a projection system will expect a player who had a breakout year to decline, and it won’t project huge breakout years, so it won’t generally come up with many 95+ win teams.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
What Beefy said.
Also, your standard deviation from these projections will be about 6 games, so even if these projections are exactly correct about these teams on paper and the teams didn’t change due to injury, etc., you still wouldn’t be surprised to see a team 6 or even more games off these projections in one direction or the other once you actually play the games.
I might do a later post where I actually simulate the in-season games, where each team actually wins or loses in the simulation instead of just having a win% for each game (e.g., the Twins may have a 58% chance of beating the royals, but if you pick a random number to simulate the game, they will just either win or lose). Doing it this way you can get all sorts of results that will look more like an actual season’s data, with some teams considerably outperforming or underperforming their projections, but the results will all line up around the projection if you do enough simulations.
AL Central
It seems to be a stretch to me that we would be the only team over .500 in our division. Especially if you are giving the Orioles over 76 wins…I don’t see the Orioles actually being as good as either the White Sox or the Tigers, and I will be shocked if one of those two, or even both, aren’t over .500
Chicago had a losing record last season
And I think it’s hard to argue they look any better this year. As I said above, I might be low-balling the Tigers a little bit based on Porcello (although mathewson’s “overuse” theory makes some sense to me too), and I’ve seen some systems liking the Indians more than me, though I’m not sure exactly why. Maybe one of them adds Damon and picks up a win or two.
But generally, here my model agrees with my gut sense that the other teams in the division are mediocre at best.
They'll have Peavy all year
and Rios almost has to play better than he did last year.
I’m not worried about them, but they could be better.
Peavy yes, Rios no
I doubt Rios will bounce back, especially in center field.
Peavy is a stud, and he will help an already strong rotation. But I don’t like the offense or the defense much. I project them to have an even record and battle the Tigers for second place.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Are you sure about that?
Rios’ WAR the last few years goes:
3.3
4.8
5.6
-0.1
He’s not going to be a 5 WAR player again but I know which of those seasons looks like the outlier.
Here's where I think people overestimate the White Sox
The starting rotation is good, but it’s not THAT good.
PECOTA CHONE PECOTA CHONE
mark buehrle 4.25 4.12 scott baker 3.85 3.93
jake peavy 3.66 3.91 nick blackburn 4.29 4.58
gavin floyd 4.10 4.33 carl pavano 4.73 4.5
john danks 4.02 4.26 kevin slowey 3.99 4.33
freddy garcia 4.59 4.57 francisco liriano 4.33 4.53
Averages
White Sox
PECOTA 4.12
CHONE 4.24
Twins
PECOTA 4.24
CHONE 4.37
And Liriano looks like he might way outperform that projection
Let’s hope.
Like I said, I’m not afraid of the White Sox at all. The Twins are clearly the class of the division. But the Sox will be a good team. Definitely above .500.
Last year, his production fell off a cliff
He wasn’t injured. But he just wasn’t much of an offensive player at all. He’ll be a good offensive center fielder, but defensively, he’ll be below average at best.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
I suppose he could bounce back
I just didn’t like what I saw last year. It looked like he was completely messed up.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
yankees
I don’t see them winning 11 fewer games this year. Their starting pitching is just as good as last year, and they might get better. Their lineup is just as good as last year, and their bullpen isn’t worse either.
I don’t know…. I don’t see them going from 103 down to 92. Plus last year they started off so slowly. I think they can start better, and if they don’t finish as hot as last year, I still see them winning atleast 96 or 97.
is it a question of age?
do these systems that generate projections look at the age of the players? The Yankees are a pretty old team. Signing Randy Winn didn’t make them any younger… :-)
I do have them ranked as the second-best team in baseball,
so they have about as good a shot at 100+ as anyone sans the Red Sox. The thing though, is they actually have a lower shot of making the playoffs than the Twins due to the 2 other powerhouses in their division.
Twins are a great offense
sluggers…
The Hochevar Principle: The future comes to all teams. Some teams wait for it. Those teams finish in last place a lot. -Joe Posnanski
Doesn't look like it reconciles
It looks like your runs scored and runs allowed don’t reconcile. Median runs scored is 5.0 and median runs allowed is 4.5.
Yeah, that's correct
A neutral opponent that scores as many runs as they allow will be below-average with these teams, which obviously isn’t true in an actual MLB season. (I adjust the win%s to center around 50% though). I think largely this is a result of PECOTA overestimating hitters and/or underestimating pitchers, but if you want to defend PECOTA, you’d say that these teams, on paper, actually would tend to be better than the average MLB team whose RS=RA in an actual season, since teams put together the best major leaguers in the offseason, and then injuries happen and the talent level slips during the season.
Anyway, it shouldn’t affect the relative positions of the teams.
Regression to the mean?
Are pitchers being regressed more heavily to the mean than the hitters? It makes it hard to trust the math when it has MLB scoring more runs than it allows.
That might be part of it
If you’re doing a projection system, pitcher performance year-to-year is more volatile, so you regress it further to the mean. The pitchers that end up being volitile in the wrong direction are quickly swapped down to the minors for others who look better.
So your projection would show that the pitchers on the MLB roster at the start of the year are mediocre compared to the hitters on the roster, since the pitchers that actually end up pitching in the majors in the coming year will be those on the rosters that perform well, plus a bunch of minor leaguers that outperform expectations.
If I showed you the runs scored/allowed in the simulation of the teams’ actual schedules, where they play each other not a neutral opponent, then the RS/RA would match up.
Injuries, too
I buy a lot of what you said – pitcher performance is simply more volatile and resistant to prediction.
I would guess that injuries are another aspect. This system projects full seasons for basically every player, but we all know that’s not going to happen. Batter injuries would drive down the actual runs scored while pitcher injuries drove up the runs allowed.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Good work
But it seems strange the winner
of the NL East wins only about 85 games and is either the Phillies or the Braves
and 3, 90+ win teams all in one division ? (AL East) ….it could happen
Lets go get Adrian Gonzalez..... how do you say holy shit! - ~en espanol ?
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 18, 2010 7:22 PM EST reply actions
Also I'm pretty confident the White Sox will win more
than 77 games but maybe thats just me…..
i’d love it for once, if the AL central was not a nail bitter all the way down the stretch for once! (with us leading the way, of course)
Lets go get Adrian Gonzalez..... how do you say holy shit! - ~en espanol ?
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Feb 18, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
Any interest in TT community power rankings?
I thought it might be fun to do a community vote for power rankings, sort of like Roger and Seth did for prospect rankings. If enough people are interested, I’ll put something up and start it going this weekend.
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Feb 18, 2010 9:51 PM EST reply actions
I think that would be fun
"Pinch-bunters don't have a ton of value, even with the Twins"
by Steven Ellingson on Feb 19, 2010 1:19 AM EST up reply actions
Sounds like fun.
And thanks everyone for the comments on here and the front-pagification of my post! Very cool.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
