Diamondbacks 1, Giants 2 - Justin Competent
by Jim McLennan on Sep 12, 2007 12:01 PM EDT
in Diamondbacks Game Reports
Email
PrintRecord: 82-64. Change on last season: +13. Pace: 91-71
Playoff odds: 87.0%. Playoff Magic Number: 12
Quote of the day: "I tried to cut it off, and the ball skipped. It skipped like the ground was wet." -- Justin Upton
I feel sure that, over the course of a long, successful career with Arizona, Justin Upton will have many memorable apppearances. There shall be clutch hits, game-saving plays in the outfield, walk-off homers and...is that a ring I see? Okay, that's getting ahead of myself. However: he's going to have a lot of good games.
Tuesday night, however, was definitely not one of them.
Per Fangraphs.com, in four at-bats, he managed to reduce our chances of winning by an amazing 37.1%. That's the worst I've seen by a D-backs hitter this season [pitchers are different; they involved in more at-bats, getting debit or credit for every hitter they face.] In fact, the only worse performance that comes to mind is Torrealba for the Rockies against us on August 31. He came up three times with the bases loaded, twice with the game tied, once with AZ one up, and made three outs, including a double-play. That was only slightly worse than Upton, at 43.5%.
He started brightly enough, singling in the second and getting his first stolen base. However, it was all downhill from there, in a Grand Canyon-esque kinda way. He struck out in the fourth, and then came three real killers. Bases-loaded, one out in the sixth, tied game: Upton grounds into a double-play. Bottom eighth, still tied: Upton badly misplays a leadoff hit by Ortmeier, and instead of a single, the hitter's on third and scores on a sac.fly. Top ninth: Upton grounds into another double-play. This one ends the game. Giants win. Giants win.
So, today's question would be, who do we want as our everyday right-fielder down the stretch and (touch wood) beyond? Jeff Salazar, Justin Upton or Carlos Quentin? I'm really not convinced Upton is ready for it yet: he has shown questionably defensive skills, and he's only hitting .240, so is hardly making up for it with his bat. He only just turned twenty, and skipped polishing in Triple-A, so rookie mistakes are inevitable. I'm just not sure they should be getting made in October. Discuss.
Still, despite the loss, there were a number of good things to be taken from the game. Even though the Padres won, It didn't actually affect our post-season chances much, only by about 2%. That's because the top wild-card teams lost, so our odds there increased almost as much as our division odds decreased. On a more macroscopic level, however, Edgar Gonzalez passed his audition as #5 starter with flying colors, allowing one run in six innings, and so gets another start on Sunday. That start would have gone to Micah Owings, but he's been pushed back to the Giants series.
Eric Byrnes got three hits, and Chris Young his his 30th HR of the season, putting him in some elite company. Here are the players who smacked 30 round-trippers aged 23 or younger over the past decade: Nomar, Vlad, A-Rod, Andruw Jones, Scott Rolen, Troy Glaus, Eric Chavez, Pujols, Aramis Ramirez, Hank Blalock, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder. Restrict the list to center-fielders and results become even more impressive. Young is only the ninth CF in baseball history to hit 30 homers aged 23 or younger:
- Andruw Jones (36 HR at age 23, 2000 + 31/21, 1998)
- Ken Griffey (45/23, 1993)
- Juan Gonzalez (43/22, 1992)
- Willie Montanez (30/23, 1971)
- Mickie Mantle (37/23, 1955)
- Willie Mays (41/23, 1954)
- Duke Snider (31/23, 1950)
- Joe DiMaggio (32/23, 1938 + 46/22, 1937)
Griffey. Mantle. Mays. DiMaggio. You've joined quite some class there, Chris. Oh, and of them, only Jones, in 1998, stole as many bases as Young has done this year. Sure, the game is somewhat different now than it was in the 1950's - when Snider hit his 30, he was one of only eleven players in the majors to do so, compared to last year, where thirty-four reached that mark. But it's still a remarkable feat.
Solid Gameday Thread, despite the absence of a couple of regular players. We promoted some commentators from Double-A, and they seemed to fit in quite well. :-) Thanks to Red Army (welcome!), 4CornersFan, VIII, DbacksSkins, carahan, Adam (welcome!), hotclaws, suitsmetoATnT, unnamedDBacksfan, singaporedbacksfan, soco, seton hall snake pit, TwinnerA, peeklay, Grant and snakecharmer. And with that, to work...
Gameday Graph
[Click graph to enlarge, in new window]
Master of his domain: J. Competent, -37.9%
God-emperor of suck: Edgar Gonzalez, +23.3%
Honorary "Well done!": Eric Byrnes, +12.7%
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Start
by unnamedDBacksfan on Sep 12, 2007 12:03 PM EDT reply actions
Upton
Salazar is still hobbled and I trust Quentin's glove, but not his bat, so I guess we're screwed each way with these 3.
I'd like to see Romero brought up and given a chance.
Magic number
The max the Phillies can win is 94, so you take 95 and subtract that from our win total of 82 and you get 13. A tie gets us a playoff game, which doesn't count.
Am I the only one....
salazar
Though I'm glad Edgar Gonzalez is getting the nod after yesterday's start - he just needs more run support.
Emperor of the Domain and God-Emperor of Suck got switched - or was that supposed to be sarcasm. Eh, who knows? If sarcasm, it certainly fits.
I'd be hesitant
I like Chris Black Young as much as the next guy. Really. He's delightful. But his offensive production really isnt in the same universe as most of the Hall of Famers you mentioned. Not yet anyway.
1937 Dimag 168 OPS+
1938 Dimag 139 " "
1950 Duke 140 " "
1954 Willie 175 " "
1955 Mick 181 " "
1971 Naranjo 124 " "
1992 Igor 134 " "
1993 Igor 169 " "
1993 Junior 172 " "
1998 Druw 114 " "
2000 Druw 126 " "
Realistically, I see CBY as more of a cross between Jeff Francoeur and Torii Hunter at the same age - I wouldnt rule out an upside in the Andruw Jones range. A very exciting young ballplayer.
Oh, and I thought Meriwether blew one, possibly two, bang bangs at first last night. Drew was safe and Upton's game ender...gee, he sure looked safe to me. What bothers me is that Meriwether appears to make the call before the out is even recorded. I thought Juston got his foot in there.
Oh, absolutely
by Jim McLennan on Sep 12, 2007 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
In terms of Home Runs, specifically,
Cameron was nowhere at 23, but put up a 109 OPS+ at 24 and is 115 career. After Chris' homer last night, he's at 89. I wasnt thinking so much about the strikeouts with Francoeur - more that they're both sluggers who dont get on base enough - and have some defensive impact in the outfield.
I certainly hope Chris rounds out his offensive game, but my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact he hasnt hit over .277 at any level, including some nice hitting environments.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 12, 2007 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Though
by Jim McLennan on Sep 12, 2007 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
107 it is...
I didnt pay much attention to Cameron's 63, not because it was low, but because he's actually had a very consistent career and that looks to be the result of an injury or some one off problem that hardly defines the kind of player he is.
If Chris can hit .277 in the majors, he'll be a very nice player, better than Cameron. I think he's got at least an even shot to do that, but still feel it's a bit of an open question. I dont think Chris has a "way better" future than Mike based on the thirty dingers. It's been a relatively empty thirty - and doesnt represent his current offensive value particularly well.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 12, 2007 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Just to compare like with like
In 511 at-bats, and a year younger, Young is hitting .237 with double the number of homers and a 37:122 ratio. So Cameron had more walks, but also struck out at a higher rate and had much less power. It's difficult to argue that, overall, Young is significantly better at the plate than Cameron was at the same age.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 12, 2007 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not "like to like"
Few modern players have called more shitty hitter's parks home than Mike Cameron. Is he a great player. No. Is he an underrated, undervalued player because of it? Hell yes.
I dont think we disagree all that much about Chris Young; I certainly respect the significance of what he's done at age 23 as opposed to 24 or 25. I just took exception to the cavalier assumption that CBY/Cammy comparisons "badly underestimate" Young, by virtue of some 30 homer/thirty walk season in a bandbox, as if Cameron's been left in the dust like some shitty journeyman. The more one looks into their early comparitive numbers, the more similar they are - not more distant.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 12, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Correction
Okay, let's take purely the stats on the road, away from their shitty/bandbox parks, for their first full seasons. Remember Cameron was a year older than Young.
Cameron 1997: .246/.338/.379, 4 HR in 235 PA
Young 2007: .242/.293/.504 18 HR in 273 PA
Chris Young has actually hit more of his homers away from Chase, 18 compared to only 12 at home - where he's also had more plate-appearances. His OPS is 61 points higher on the road, so he's not benefiting very much from any park effect at all. And, before you ask, none of the homers were at Coors, either. Indeed, outside AZ, Young has hit more homers in Florida - even more pitcher-friendly than Comiskey - than any other park.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 12, 2007 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesnt matter
Different example, same concept. Jake Peavy's ERA is better on the road this year than at Petco. Does that mean that Peavy doesnt benefit from pitching at Petco Park? No . Not any more than it means that Petco magically became a hitter's haven overnight. It just means that in Jake's 30 starts this year , he happened to pitch much better on the road. It happens. But when he hangs breaking balls at Petco, they still go to die in Cameron's glove more than in any other park - Jake just, for whatever reason, didnt hang as many on the road this year, figuratively speaking.
Much like our run diff discussion, it's over time that one sees meaningful statistical results. In 160 career starts for example, Peavy's home ERA is about 20% lower than on the road. And over time, CBY will hit more homers at Chase.
I think one can make the argument that he hits a certain type of bomb that may be less dependent on park characteristics than some other guys who typically just clear the wall, guys like Montero or CoJack. But over a career, even the benefit for a tape measure hitter will manifest itself at Chase by way of a "cheap" homer now and then, enough to counterbalance stuff like "playing better on the road".
All this stuff is already incorporated in Young's 89 OPS+ - that's why I gravitate towards it more than your 30/30 dross :- ) OPS+ isnt perfect, but a lot of good stuff is embedded in it. Nobody's questioning that Young's a better home run hitter than Cameron. I'm not even really questioning that Young is a better all around hitter at 23-24. I'm just saying it's premature to malign analyses that had the two closely valued. Look, I'll return your magnanimous gesture and include Cameron's 63 season, add it to his 109 campaign to arrive at a composite of 86 or so. Chris is a year or two younger at 89 OPS+. That makes Young's future brighter than Cameron's at the same age, but it's the difference between a 60watt bulb and a 40, if that - not between a halogen headlamp and a nitelight.
Maybe the most compelling argument I can think of for Young is the timing of his second half power surge. I think he has the most NL homers after the break, or close to it. If he "broke out" early then tailed off later(a la Reynolds, or Drew & Q last year), it might seem flukier, but this may be part of his natural progression. Not definitive, but very encouraging.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 13, 2007 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Diamondhacks, I'm sick of your dissenting opinions
"Facts? Do not trouble me with facts!"
Exactly. So your snide "bandbox" assertion was factually unfounded. Young does not depend on Chase for his power: dispose of their home parks, and he had four times as many homers as Cameron at a similar age, and a very similar batting average. That's not a 60/40-watt comparison. Still, as we know, if the facts do not fit your opinion, they must be ruthlessly disposed of. :-)
Whether he can maintain it, of course, is a perfectly valid question - and you're spot on about it being good that he's improving as the season goes on. We'll see: but thus far, the signs seem to me to indicate that he's going to outhit Cameron by a significant margin.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 13, 2007 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Butt
Heh. I guess I could take that as a compliment, but somehow I know better :-) I really dont wanna turn this into another brouhaha, but this is where we butt heads, Jim; the implication that, unlike you of course, I cant be bothered with facts due to some overarching agenda.
I brought up park effects, you countered with Young's road stats as some sort of "proof" that CBY doesnt benefit from Chase. That's fine. It's a decent argument and I addressed it as such. I didnt ignore it, or deflect it, I directly rebutted it, even providing a less touchy contextual example (Peavy) that might be easier for you to stomach.
What do you want me to say? "Young's 18 road homers prove he doesnt benefit from hitting at Chase?" Would that make you feel better? Well, I'm not gonna do it, cuz then I'd have to say that Peavy hasnt benefitted from Petco, and go back to 2006 and assert Brandon Webb's CYA was assisted by pitching at Chase, by virtue of the fact his home ERA was lower than his road. It's bullshit, and I'm not gonna do it just so you find me less annoying.
Your response, by contrast, is to totally ignore (or pehaps misunderstand) my second point about park effects, reassert your original claim, and on that basis, apparently, countercharge that my bandbox comment is "snide" and I cant handle facts? I mean, c'mon, middle-aged Scottish arguing dude. I cant say if you genuinely dont understand the park effects point, or dont want to understand it - be that as it may - but I find it interesting that you (and many others incl. me) were so eager to pooh pooh Byrnes' 25/25 last year, often citing his 95 OPS+ as evidence of his "truer" value. But here, that type of OPS analysis (dare we call them "facts"?) doesnt fit your position (dare we call it an "agenda"?), so you've glommed onto the 30/30 and want little if any part of the broader discussion.
Regarding Cammy/CBY's comparitive homers, you're having an "argument" with yourself. I've never argued Cameron is a better HR hitter than Young. Ever. Dude, I've never even argued Cameron is a better player than Young! I've simply said it's premature, IMO, to say folks who comped these guys "badly underestimated" Chris. I've challenged your use of the word "badly". And, I've provided "facts"(OPS+ essentially) to suggest the two are somewhat closer than your HR analysis would indicate. That's it!
How you derive the notion that I cant be bothered by facts from that, is honestly beyond me.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 13, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Let's just review, shall we?
There's no doubt about the implication here: Chris Young is over-rated, the lucky beneficiary of playing in a launching-pad. Unfortunately, as was clearly shown, he isn't. Why he hits less homers at Chase, I don't know. Maybe it's random chance, maybe it's the way he swings, who knows.
However, taking that out of the equation for both men, Chris Young has clearly had a far superior season to the one Mike Cameron had during his first full year in the majors. 125 points better in SLG, 80 better in OPS on the road. That's why I ignored the Chase Field park effect, because it's not relevant - on the road, where Chase played no part, Young kicked Cameron's ass. Unless you're saying that Cameron only ever played in pitcher's parks?
[ I'm just saying it's premature to malign analyses that had the two closely valued. ]
Fine. You can say it all you want. And, of course, it's one season. But the evidence so far is that Young will leave Cameron in the dust. That's not a knock on Cameron, just an acknowledgment that Young is performing above most expectations with regard to power. Cameron hit his 30th major-league homer aged 26 years, six months. Chris Young hit his, a week after his 24th birthday. And most of them not in a "bandbox", please note.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 13, 2007 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Home Sweet Home
Lol. Perhaps home stats dont fit neatly with your preconceived notions about the two players, but they're every bit as relevant (after park adjs) to player evaluation as are road stats.
Why [CBY] hits less homers at Chase, I don't know.
That's right, you dont. Here's something else we dont know. Why he hit more homers on the road. Yet on the basis of this dual ignorance, you ask us to heed these ever smaller, less significant splits (a couple hundred road ABs) as some definitive indicator of comparative performance - while utterly ignoring a) all the pertinent home data and b) the larger sample, "unsplit" seasonal measures like OPS. Which (gasp!) lead one to entirely different conclusions, at odds with your sales pitch that Cameron cant hold a candle to Young.
There's no doubt about the implication here: Chris Young is over-rated, the lucky beneficiary of playing in a launching-pad.
That's not the most important implication here, but yeah, that's certainly one of the things I'm saying. It's comic to me that you have a problem with this, or with my "snide" use of the word "bandbox", a word you'd no doubt be wailing like a banshee (alongside me), were we discussing Brandon Webb's ERA, for example.
Young's 30/30 as a Dback isnt quite as impressive as if he had acheived it with most other teams. One cant plausibly deny that he plays in a hitters park, so instead you've asserted it's somehow, magically, "not relevant", I guess because he happened to hit 18 homers on the road. I've debunked this logic twice previously (Peavy, Webb), so pardon me if I pass this time around. In short, the fact Young hit more homers on the road in no way negates the fact that he "benefitted" from playing 75 games at Chase Field anyway. And the fact he hit more homers on the road is in no way indicative that those 18 are a more valid or representative sample of CBY's talents than are the dozen he hit locally under more favorable conditions. Independent, but equally important samples(assuming equal ABs), after park adjustments.
The bigger implication you missed is this. The 30/30 club, while certainly a nice accomplishment, is a two dimensional contrivance that misses a great deal more than it captures in terms of offensive player evaluation. There's a host of invisible "clubs" out there that are at least as relevant to this discussion, which call Mike Cameron a member but exclude CBY. How about the 100 OPS "club"? Too high? Maybe Chris can come out and play in the 92 OPS "club"? How about the 14 homer, get on base 30% of the time "club"? And so on. I'm not saying any of these things categorically define CBY v Cameron either, but they would seem to be as compelling as Young's rather obvious home run superiority. Or at least compelling enough to temper the narrowly argued assertion that Young is a significantly better offensive player based on his bombs (& the one year age advantage).
You started this by listing a bunch of Hall of Famers (mostly) in the 30/30 club. You offered a brief caveat about eras, but this list was still your frame of reference for Chris. Well, here's another frame of reference. It's not historic. It's real time, 2007. Players 24 and younger, sorted by OPS. CBY's seventeenth. If you reduce PA's to 325, to include players like Ryan Braun, CBY falls to 24th, between Rickie Weeks and Melky Cabrera.
I'm just baffled why you're so reluctant to acknowledge this rather obvious point, opting instead to repeatedly revisit a narrower point agreed long ago (Young's HR superiority over Cameron) - and doing so with progresively less compelling evidence?
by Diamondhacks on Sep 14, 2007 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
We're flogging a dead horse here.
If you want to have any kind of meaningful debate, you just can't throw the likes of Prince Fielder into the conversation. That's utterly laughable. You have to compare Young with other players of the same age at his position. Restrict your list to CF, and you find, first, that there's only three in the majors - the other two both with significantly more experience than Young before this year - and CY is second in OPS.
["Young's 30/30 as a Dback isnt quite as impressive as if he had acheived it with most other teams."]
LOL. Your prejudice is showing here - why do I suspect you'd be more enthusiastic if he'd been a Colangelo/Rizzo baby, rather than a product entirely of the new regime? Denigrate his achievements all you like, but he's done something significant, something never before achieved in baseball history by a rookie. Nice article today on him in the Republic. I'll finish with a couple of quotes from that:
by Jim McLennan on Sep 14, 2007 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree about flogging
Denigrate his achievements all you like...
In this thread, I've gifted you several pro-Young nuggets, about his tape measure stroke, about his age, about the likelihood he'll be better than Cameron with an Andruw Young-like potential upside. I've said nice things about him all year on this site, when some wanted to ship him to Tucson. I've acknowledged what a nice accomplishment 30/30 is, as well.
But as soon as I mention that 30/30 maybe isnt the best indicator of his current - and by extension, future - value, or that he plays in a hitter's park, or whatever , it's a devious plot, a Colangelo/Rizzo inspired thing. Must...denigrate...Young.
Jim, your reflexive approach here is the very opposite of "objectivity". How objective I am, or how objective you perceive me to be, really has nothing to do with it. Or at least it shouldn't. You are arguing the person (me, or your fabulous vison of "me") instead of the facts - to the detriment of objective dialogue.
Here, you've got this piece of objectivity (OPS+) staring you in the face, and not once in this entire thread have you even acknowledged that maybe it's a bit of an issue with Young - that it tempers his 30/30 exploits somewhat. It's such a glaring, obvious point, that your unwilingness to do so harms your credibility, IMO.
btw, I dont disagree with anything Josh Byrnes said - the notion that Chris Young will "get better" is an incredibly tame one that doesnt bolster your argument in the least. The question is "how much". Personally, I hope it's alot.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 14, 2007 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Objectivity?
Pot...kettle. :-) Certainly, Young has flaws. But the problem is as much, your long record of an attack-dog approach to almost everything the new owners have done, renders your agenda and motives suspect here. Your world-view is so utterly purple-tinged that it becomes an essential factor of every discussion. It seems we can predict your viewpoint on almost any topic, with a huge degree of accuracy, based purely on whether Hall and Moorad were involved...
You bring up park factors, yet ignore that Young has shown more power away from the "bandbox". You grudgingly concede a "likelihood" he'll be better than Cameron, rather than admitting he already is far better than Cameron at the same age (on his 24th birthday, Cameron had earned 49 major-league at bats, one homer and a .163 average!). And you flog the dead horse of OPS+ relentlessly, posting charts which compare Young to the likes of Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera, rather than like with like.
Nope. Color me thoroughly unimpressed, and all your jabs at my "credibility" won't change that.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 14, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Cumbersome
Wow. Talk about inaccurately assigning your own spurious MO to your antagonist. I didnt ignore CBY's road stats in the least. I said they were every bit as important as his home stats. And the OPS charts I "relentlessly" trot out incorporate...um... road stats.
You , Mr Objectivity, parsed and snipped out the home stats, boldly declaring them "irrelevant" to make your self serving power projections. What a joke!
You grudgingly concede a "likelihood" he'll be better than Cameron
Hardly. What I begrudge is your conventional, insulated, rah rah "wisdom" that Young unequivocally leaves Cameron in the dust. It might happen. It might not. You're obviously not even willing to entertain the latter possibility, which I think is intellectually sloppy.
And you flog the dead horse of OPS+ relentlessly...
Well, if you would simply acknowledge it's obvious relevance here, I wouldnt flog it now, would I? Sound reasonable?
Re "Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera"
Sorry you dont like it, but there's nothing dishonest about this. You created a certain impression with the 23 year old 30HR club (regardless of defensive position), which showed CBY in a brilliant, almost Hall of Famish light. That's fine, it's part of the story, but I wanted to balance that by fleshing out how unremarkable Chris's overall production has been compared to other 23 year old stars/ semi stars(Rickie Weeks,etc), regardless of position. For one thing, impressionable people might read your partisan homage and easily assume that CBY is a better hitter than Prince, Cabrera, etc. With all due respect to CBY's defense and running, I think that idea is ridiculous and needs to be squashed like a bug.
It seems we can predict your viewpoint on almost any topic, with a huge degree of accuracy...
So what. I can "predict" your opinions with at least as much accuracy. But my predicatble opinions are the result of a dishonest, ill informed, attack dog "agenda", whereas your predictble opinions result from your keen mind, intellectual rigor and innately objective disposition, I'm quite certain ;-)
Your world-view is so utterly purple-tinged that it becomes an essential factor of every discussion.
Well, it's an all encompassing issue in every discussion with you , that's for damn sure. It's certainly not in conversations I have with most reasonably intelligent folk( although cavscout runs a close second). What's most insulting is your self assurance that my positions, diametrically opposed to some of yours, must somehow have corrupt origins. If I mentioned Bonafacio has thrown several balls wide at second, most folks would take it at face value, but to you it would be a signal to put on your armor and belittle it as agenda driven, like an attack dog, really, until one or both of us tire of the charade. You say you welcome fact based discussion from everybody but your posture, with me anyway, all too often belie your words. If you dont wanna give me a fair shake, that's your perogative, but dont say you are and then dis me before I open my mouth. It's unbecoming.
Certainly, Young has flaws.
Whoopee. Why this takes 1000 words of back n forth, to get to this starting point, I have no idea. Oh, that's right, I have that cumbersome agenda that always gets in the way ;-)
by Diamondhacks on Sep 15, 2007 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I would respond
by Jim McLennan on Sep 15, 2007 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Aww, cmon...
by Diamondhacks on Sep 15, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm....
Owings won't be pitching for a while
Owings won't be getting the ball till next Tuesday of Webb's start on Monday.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
