White Sox - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Chicago White Sox

White Sox

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: White Sox

Postby 05worldserieschamps » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:40 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
05worldserieschamps wrote:
1. Of course, a few RP cant help you if you suck. They had(and have) no offense and little to none starting pitching. However with the White Sox, they have a good team now. And their bullpen ERA was well over 6.00(im pretty sure it was over 7.00). They needed another solid arm in the bullpen. And they signed another consistent arm with Linebrink. You gave to 2 perfect examples in Bradford and Walker on consistent relief pitching. They have always been very consistent. RP isnt impossible to predict. Thats stupid. Linebrink, Bradford and Walker are all perfect examples, along with many more, of consistent bullpen arms.

2. Dont make me laugh. That situation doesnt even compare to Linebrink. Linebrink has NEVER had a full season of over 3.75. Hawkins' career ERA is 4.68. Just because he has a streak of 4 good years doesnt mean anything. THAT is a good example of inconsistent RP.


Yes, Bradford and Walker came through. Their good performance replaced some really awful ones in 2006...and how many games did the Orioles improve in 2007? Hint: They actually lost more games. IOW, we made TWICE as big an improvement as the Sox did in trying to address bullpen problems, and it even worked, and we still didn't get better.

2. You do realize that Linebrink pitched in one of the best pitcher's park. For the record, here are his ERAs and Hawkins ERA adjusted for ballpark and compared to the league average:

Linebrink: 123, 181, 210, 113, 113
Hawkins: 210, 243, 167, 113

You're silly if you don't see that Hawkins was BETTER than Linebrink at his peak, and that both of them showed a significant decline heading into the year where they were signed as bullpen saviors.



1. The difference is the White Sox improved their offense too. Of course, if you dont improve anything but bullpen, its not going to make much of a difference. Hint: The orioles didnt suck in 2007 because of bullpen(even though they sucked at that too), the white sox did. They couldnt hold any games. Jenks was very good, but other than that, our second best ERA was Matt Thorton(4.79). You cant say that "Hey, the Orioles situation is the same because they improved their bullpen and got worse." Thats a terrible argument. The orioles suck becuase they have one good hitter(markakis) and one good pitcher(bedard). This isnt the same situation at all.

2. I agree Hawkins was better at his peak. But Linebrink has NEVER had a bad season. He has ALWAYS been reliable, and dependable. Hawkins is a perfect example of inconsistency. He had a few good years, but for the most part he sucks.

FACT: Linebrink is a consistent relief pitcher. You said it was impossible, and Im telling you that you are wrong. He is consistent. How good Latroy Hawkins was 4-5 years ago is irrelavent to this topic.
Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.
05worldserieschamps
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1059
Joined: 2 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Kentucky

Re: White Sox

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:02 pm

05worldserieschamps wrote:1. The difference is the White Sox improved their offense too. Of course, if you dont improve anything but bullpen, its not going to make much of a difference. Hint: The orioles didnt suck in 2007 because of bullpen(even though they sucked at that too), the white sox did. They couldnt hold any games. Jenks was very good, but other than that, our second best ERA was Matt Thorton(4.79). You cant say that "Hey, the Orioles situation is the same because they improved their bullpen and got worse." Thats a terrible argument. The orioles suck becuase they have one good hitter(markakis) and one good pitcher(bedard). This isnt the same situation at all.

2. I agree Hawkins was better at his peak. But Linebrink has NEVER had a bad season. He has ALWAYS been reliable, and dependable. Hawkins is a perfect example of inconsistency. He had a few good years, but for the most part he sucks.

FACT: Linebrink is a consistent relief pitcher. You said it was impossible, and Im telling you that you are wrong. He is consistent. How good Latroy Hawkins was 4-5 years ago is irrelavent to this topic.


If the bullpen was SO important, improving it WOULD make a difference. Winning baseball is scoring runs and preventing runs. The first is 50 percent of the game and the latter is 50 percent of the game. Preventing runs is pitching and defense. It's less clear how that breaks down, but I think most reasonable people agree that it's probably closer to 35% pitching and 15% fielding. Relief pitching, as others pointed out, is maybe 13rd of your pitching, so maybe it''s 10-15 percent of the game. And one guy is maybe 1-2 percent of that total.

Oh, by the way, the Orioles had already had a BETTER offense than the Sox last year. They scored 63 runs MORE than the Sox. They had three good hitters---Roberts, Markakis, and Tejada. That's all the Sox had last year, too. The Orioles had two good pitchers, Guthrie and Bedard, as well as adding Walker and Bradford.

So, contrary to your ignorant fanboy homerism, the Orioles are VERY similar to the Sox. Any fool could tell that by looking at their records. The Sox only had 3 more wins than the Orioles. The problem the Orioles have had in recent years is rather than actually address the real problem by getting better hitters and better starting pitchers, they've focused on a little tiny part of the problem, the relief pitching. The Linebrink move is exactly the type of move the Orioles have made in recent years and its contribution to solving the problem is damn close to zero. Linebrink has only been consistent in the sense that his performance varied from out of this world, to just barely above average (Hawkins bad years, if you cared to investigate the facts, were when he was being used as a SP. As a reliever, prior to his year with the Orioles, he had 5 out of 6 good years, including 4 in a row where he out-performed Linebrink). As others have explained, relievers with that patter are not a great bet for consistency in the future.

The Sox have made one excellent move in getting Swisher. That was a big improvement in a critical area of weakness. They made one move that may help a little, but not much, in getting Cabrera. That improved their offense a bit, but it cost them as much or maybe even more in pitching. And they made the Linebrink move, which is a rat dingleberry of a move.

So, now the Sox, who won 72 games last year, have 4 good hitters (1 more than the Orioles did last year) and 2 good starting pitchers (just like the O's did last year) since they've dumped Garland, and two good bullpen pitchers (same as the Orioles did last year).

And you think the Sox are a contender? Dream on, fanboy.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: White Sox

Postby 05worldserieschamps » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:34 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
05worldserieschamps wrote:1. The difference is the White Sox improved their offense too. Of course, if you dont improve anything but bullpen, its not going to make much of a difference. Hint: The orioles didnt suck in 2007 because of bullpen(even though they sucked at that too), the white sox did. They couldnt hold any games. Jenks was very good, but other than that, our second best ERA was Matt Thorton(4.79). You cant say that "Hey, the Orioles situation is the same because they improved their bullpen and got worse." Thats a terrible argument. The orioles suck becuase they have one good hitter(markakis) and one good pitcher(bedard). This isnt the same situation at all.

2. I agree Hawkins was better at his peak. But Linebrink has NEVER had a bad season. He has ALWAYS been reliable, and dependable. Hawkins is a perfect example of inconsistency. He had a few good years, but for the most part he sucks.

FACT: Linebrink is a consistent relief pitcher. You said it was impossible, and Im telling you that you are wrong. He is consistent. How good Latroy Hawkins was 4-5 years ago is irrelavent to this topic.


If the bullpen was SO important, improving it WOULD make a difference. Winning baseball is scoring runs and preventing runs. The first is 50 percent of the game and the latter is 50 percent of the game. Preventing runs is pitching and defense. It's less clear how that breaks down, but I think most reasonable people agree that it's probably closer to 35% pitching and 15% fielding. Relief pitching, as others pointed out, is maybe 13rd of your pitching, so maybe it''s 10-15 percent of the game. And one guy is maybe 1-2 percent of that total.

Oh, by the way, the Orioles had already had a BETTER offense than the Sox last year. They scored 63 runs MORE than the Sox. They had three good hitters---Roberts, Markakis, and Tejada. That's all the Sox had last year, too. The Orioles had two good pitchers, Guthrie and Bedard, as well as adding Walker and Bradford.

So, contrary to your ignorant fanboy homerism, the Orioles are VERY similar to the Sox. Any fool could tell that by looking at their records. The Sox only had 3 more wins than the Orioles. The problem the Orioles have had in recent years is rather than actually address the real problem by getting better hitters and better starting pitchers, they've focused on a little tiny part of the problem, the relief pitching. The Linebrink move is exactly the type of move the Orioles have made in recent years and its contribution to solving the problem is damn close to zero. Linebrink has only been consistent in the sense that his performance varied from out of this world, to just barely above average (Hawkins bad years, if you cared to investigate the facts, were when he was being used as a SP. As a reliever, prior to his year with the Orioles, he had 5 out of 6 good years, including 4 in a row where he out-performed Linebrink). As others have explained, relievers with that patter are not a great bet for consistency in the future.

The Sox have made one excellent move in getting Swisher. That was a big improvement in a critical area of weakness. They made one move that may help a little, but not much, in getting Cabrera. That improved their offense a bit, but it cost them as much or maybe even more in pitching. And they made the Linebrink move, which is a rat dingleberry of a move.

So, now the Sox, who won 72 games last year, have 4 good hitters (1 more than the Orioles did last year) and 2 good starting pitchers (just like the O's did last year) since they've dumped Garland, and two good bullpen pitchers (same as the Orioles did last year).

And you think the Sox are a contender? Dream on, fanboy.


1. I never said the bullpen was "SO important." Do I think its important? Of course it is. I honestly believe our bullpen cost us 10 wins easily last year. Thats important. I dont think you can win a championship without a good bullpen. It certainly hasnt been done in the last 10 years.(in fact, the teams that won it have generally had the best bullpens, or at least performed the best during the playoffs) Leading a baseball game past the 7th is like a win, if you can just hold it. Holding a win is important. As important as SP or hitting? no. Because thats what gets you in that position. But if you cant hold the lead, whats the point?

2. On the subject of Orioles vs. White Sox last year, thats a joke. We both know the White Sox well underperformed. I will admit, they overperformed in 2006, but these guys averages/projections make up a very good offense. The Orioles dont at all. They just dont have a good team. They also have to hope for 2008. Also, a major difference is the White Sox have improved the rest of their team. Its not like the Orioles(or what you are saying) where we improve our bullpen only and hope to gain 20 wins. Thats stupid. However, if you are picking up offensive players as well and guys that really help your team AND bullpen, then its important.

And regardless of what you say, if you are a team trying to go from 72 wins to 90+ and win a Division Title(not saying they are going to, saying they are trying) then you absolutly MUST improve the worst part of your team from the year before. We have done that in both categories with stacking up the offense and adding a very key addition to the 'pen.


And your evaluation of the Sox vs. Orioles is stupid. Maybe we only have 4 really good hitters(I assume you are speaking of Konerko, Thome, Swisher and Crede). But you are leaving out Jermaine Dye, Carlos Quentin, Orlando Cabrera and AJ Pierzynski. By no means are these guys really good hitters, but they are good/decent. And they all bring valuable additions(some beyond just hitting) to the Sox. Aside from Markakis, Mora and Tejada, the Orioles had no one. Aside from those guys, they had Brian Roberts, who I would consider in that category of "decent." They had ONE guys who hit 20 HR.(markakis-23) The Sox had 5 guys 20+HR(2 over 30), and they didnt even have Joe Crede last year. Fact is: WHite Sox have a MUCH better team offense than the Orioles last year, they just underperofrmed A LOT last season.

Again, theres no depth there. After Bedard and Guthrie and Walker and Bradford, there NO BODY. Danks should improve a lot, as he just flamed out in the second half of the season. He pitched very well the first half. And Bill James seems to believe that Jose Contreras will bounce back from that God awful year he had last season.(his ERA is 4.27) If Buehrle and Vazquez can continue to pitch well and Contreras can have a decent comeback, this could still be a good rotation. Danks will have to step into a big role, but I like him a lot. But I still have a feeling Kenny Williams is going to get another arm, like a solid #3, to replace Floyd, who is awful. If not, I think they will have a difficult time competeing. With a solid #3, I think they could without a doubt be a contender.
Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.
05worldserieschamps
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1059
Joined: 2 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Kentucky

Re: White Sox

Postby bigh0rt » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 pm

05worldserieschamps wrote:Aside from those guys, they had Brian Roberts, who I would consider in that category of "decent."

Brian Roberts is "decent" and Orlando Cabrera is good? I'll take the guy with an OPS+ of 139, 96. and 112 over the guy with 81, 91, and 95 all day long.

With a solid #3, I think they could without a doubt be a contender.

Unfortunately you don't have a clue. Mounains of factual evidence has been staked in front of you as to why the Sox won when they won and why, barring your entire pitching staff having career years again, your team is about as big a contender as the Orioles are.

At least start reading and assessing what is presented to you. It's like you're just ignoring it and repeating yourself with diatribe that you could've gotten out of a scout's mouh in 1965.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24643
(Past Year: 817)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Re: White Sox

Postby 05worldserieschamps » Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:24 pm

bigh0rt wrote:
05worldserieschamps wrote:Aside from those guys, they had Brian Roberts, who I would consider in that category of "decent."

Brian Roberts is "decent" and Orlando Cabrera is good? I'll take the guy with an OPS+ of 139, 96. and 112 over the guy with 81, 91, and 95 all day long.

With a solid #3, I think they could without a doubt be a contender.

Unfortunately you don't have a clue. Mounains of factual evidence has been staked in front of you as to why the Sox won when they won and why, barring your entire pitching staff having career years again, your team is about as big a contender as the Orioles are.

At least start reading and assessing what is presented to you. It's like you're just ignoring it and repeating yourself with diatribe that you could've gotten out of a scout's mouh in 1965.


1. I never said OCab was "good." I put him in that same category as Roberts as good/decent.

2. In 2006, our team ERA was 4.61(which would have ranked 20th in the MLB last season, 10th in AL) which is less than flatering. However, we won 90 games in an extremely tough division.(Twins won 96, tigers 95) 90 wins could get us into a playoff spot. But thats beside the point. The point is you dont need career years from all of your pitchers to win games. If Mark Buehrle and Javier Vazquez both stay where they are, we pick up another guy at that same level(heck, maybe even blanton?) and Contreras makes the bounceback that Bill James seems to think he will and John Danks pitches like he did the first half of last season, thats a very good rotation. No real dominant Aces, but I would feel confident about our chances to win each and every day, especially with the type of offense we have with Swisher, Crede back and the other guys coming out of last years freak slumps.

Also, saying they are as much a contender as the Orioles is just ridiculous. They ARE a contender. Ask any GM in baseball, my guess is you get 30 out of 30 that would call the Sox a contender. That doesnt mean they are going to win, but they have a better than average chance. IMO, there are 4 contenders in the AL Central last year, and the Royals arent far off.
Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.
05worldserieschamps
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1059
Joined: 2 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Kentucky

Re: White Sox

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:50 pm

1. Actually, just looking at the numbers, I'd say your bullpen cost you 11 games. The difference between the Sox bullpen and the Red Sox bullpen--the best one-- was 110 runs, so at 10 runs=1 win, that's 11 games. But, Linebrink is only 1/7th of your bullpen, at most. So, adding him only gains you 1-2 wins, while something like the Swisher move probably gains you something like 4-6 wins. That's a huge difference.

2. No, I absolutely do not agree that the Sox underperformed. In fact, a lot of so-called baseball experts laughed when the sabrmetric crowd predicted the White Sox would be about a 75 win team. Look here, if you doubt that this was predicted before the season even started: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/proj2007.htm. The Sox performed very much like knowldgeable stat savvy baseball fans predicted them to perform. It was the 2005 and 2006 Sox that were the surprise, because of performances that are not likely to happen very oftenr. The pitching will not likely duplicate what it did in 2005. And the hitting will not likely duplicate what it did in 2006.

3. The Sox offense is NOT good. The 4 good hitters are Swisher, Thome, Dye, and Konerko. Crede and Fields actually project to be slightly below average for a 3B---as I pointed out, their OBP is very low, and that more than offsets their slugging. Quentin is the same. AJ and Cabrera are significantly below average. Couple that--4 above average hitters and 5 below average hitters---with a bench that is putrid and will be responsible for 25% or so of your at bats, and what you have is a below average offensive team.

Your analysis of the Orioles is laughable; as some have pointed out, your comparison of Roberts and Cabrera is clearly so off base that it's hard to stop laughing. HRs are NOT an adequate indicator of offense--hell, you should know that since you are such a fan of small ball. So, comparing the number of HRs hit tells you very little about a team's offense. The Orioles did not have a great hitter like Thome, but they had a lot of hitters that were about average and did not give reams of at bats to as many offensive nothings as the Sox did.

But, here's what you need to know about how the Oriole offense compared to the Sox last year. The Orioles scored 756 runs. The Sox scored 693. I guess since the O's had no good hitters, they did that with magic potions and fairy unicorns.

Once again, your analysis of the Sox pitching is driven by fanboy rose-colored glasses. Sure, if everything goes right and everybody who performed well does it again AND everybody who did not perform well does way better, then the Sox will have good pitching. But, you could say that about every team.

In the real world, however, that happens rarely. What you fail to see is that it is 2005 and 2006 that were the oddities for the Sox. In 2005 everything went right with the pitching. In 2006 you had huge seasons by Dye and Konerko and little else that went wrong with the hitting. In most cases, however, some guys get better and some get worse. You get an injury or two and have to rely on your bench. Some guys have career years, and some guys have the worst years of their career.

And when you factor all that in, the Sox are still a below average team. They still have below average hitting. They still have below average starters. They still have a below average bullpen. They still have an awful bench. Keep wishing for those magic potions and fairy unicorns (or maybe you can borrow them from the Orioles this year), because unless you make 3 to 4 more moves that are as big as the Swisher one, the Sox ain't sniffing the playoffs.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: White Sox

Postby J35J » Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:56 pm

still beating the dead horse, eh? :-) ;-7
J35J
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 10464
(Past Year: 620)
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: White Sox

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:05 pm

05worldserieschamps wrote:1. I never said OCab was "good." I put him in that same category as Roberts as good/decent.

2. In 2006, our team ERA was 4.61(which would have ranked 20th in the MLB last season, 10th in AL) which is less than flatering. However, we won 90 games in an extremely tough division.(Twins won 96, tigers 95) 90 wins could get us into a playoff spot. But thats beside the point. The point is you dont need career years from all of your pitchers to win games. If Mark Buehrle and Javier Vazquez both stay where they are, we pick up another guy at that same level(heck, maybe even blanton?) and Contreras makes the bounceback that Bill James seems to think he will and John Danks pitches like he did the first half of last season, thats a very good rotation. No real dominant Aces, but I would feel confident about our chances to win each and every day, especially with the type of offense we have with Swisher, Crede back and the other guys coming out of last years freak slumps.

Also, saying they are as much a contender as the Orioles is just ridiculous. They ARE a contender. Ask any GM in baseball, my guess is you get 30 out of 30 that would call the Sox a contender. That doesnt mean they are going to win, but they have a better than average chance. IMO, there are 4 contenders in the AL Central last year, and the Royals arent far off.


1. OCab is not even close to Roberts. That's why everyone is laughing at that statement.

2. In 2006, your offense scored 175 runs more than they did last year. Yes, your pitching can be below average, if your offense is among the best in the league. In 2008, your offense is NOT going to be among the best in the league. And, your pitching is not going to be among the best in the league. In fact, both your pitching and your hitting look to be below average. You can't contend with that.

So, your hopes are:
A: You get EXTREMELY lucky again like you did in 2005 and 2006 and either your pitching or hitting performs far beyond its real ability.

B: You get EXTREMELY lucky and both your hitting and pitching perform somewhat beyond their real ability.

But what is much more likely is that one or both of those either perform as expected or one performs a little above expectations and the other performs a little below. And, in that case, the Sox are again a team scraping along below .500.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: White Sox

Postby 05worldserieschamps » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:10 am

I dont think there is anything either of us can say to influence the other. Im not saying we are going to win, but we have a good shot. We are a contender. And we will finish above .500, I am saying that. But we will just have to see.
Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.
05worldserieschamps
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1059
Joined: 2 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Kentucky

Re: White Sox

Postby bigh0rt » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:51 am

05worldserieschamps wrote:I dont think there is anything either of us can say to influence the other. Im not saying we are going to win, but we have a good shot. We are a contender. And we will finish above .500, I am saying that. But we will just have to see.

Expecting anything better than 3rd in your own Division is a stretch of the imagination, as it stands today. Until you provide a shred of evidence other than repeating over and over again that, "they got better" then you're absolutely right, you're not influencing anybody. However, anybody who doesn't have Sox blinders on who enters this thread open to suggestion, I believe will certainly side with the mountains of analysis that has been presented to you, but you refuse to see.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24643
(Past Year: 817)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

PreviousNext

Return to Chicago White Sox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Apr. 18
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(2:20 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(7:05 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Miami at Miami
(7:08 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Seattle
(7:10 pm)
Atlanta at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact