CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
The Reds aren't "a lock" to win 7 more games, but they need only finish 7-16 to make it (.304). They're .500 the past month and .428 overall. While the rotation is 4 rookies plus <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=45612">Homer Bailey</a></span>, the offense remains healthy and productive. I doubt anyone cares if they make it to 65, but they are properly assigned to the upper tier of Comfortably Numb, lol.
Yep...no mention of Acevedo on this site since...uh...yesterday.
To answer my own question...the current process would probably not allow a game to end in tie if division title was at stake, but still something to consider if rules are changed moving forward.
Assuming 2 top teams in a division finish as follows:
Team A: 90-72 (.5556)
Team B: 89-71 with 2 ties, not counted (.5563)
Team B is ahead of Team A in the standings with a higher winning percentage. Does Team B officially win the division under the current rules? If so, what is your opinion regarding a need to revisit how MLB treats ties if the rules are changed to increase the probability of ties?
My thought is that it would be most fair to treat ties as a half win. In this case, Teams A and B would tie atop the standings, and the division winner would be determined by tie-breakers.
Nice analysis. Baseball might, in fact, be improved if there were more tie games. But, intuitively, it seems that the interests of the fans and the integrity of the game are best served when a tie game is still a relatively rare event.
It is important to distinguish between two separate and distinct goals: improving the pace of play, and shortening the length of games. There is little doubt that improving the pace of play (and therefore shortening the length of a standard 9-inning game) is beneficial to baseball. However, a goal of shortening the length of extra-inning games with intent to shorten the AVERAGE length of a baseball is misguided. Less than 10% of MLB games go into extra innings, and (as in most sports) they are separate animals. They will take longer finish. and they are captivating because of the potential for a sudden and unexpected conclusion. Shortening the length of these extra-inning games does not improve the quality of the >90% games that end in 9.
The only reason to shorten extra-inning games would be to improve the quality of these game themselves, not to shorten them for the sake of brevity. Ideally you would preserve as much of the integrity of the game as possible, which is why starting with a player on 2B is a not-starter for many of us. One option that could both shorten the game and improve the quality of play for spectators would be to allow each team to start the 10th inning with its full roster of 25 players. Players who got taken out earlier would be available again (until replaced). While this would adversely impact traditional baseball strategy, it would improve the offensive capabilities of the teams to score runs in extra innings. You wouldn't see as many runners stranded on 3B because the manager was forced to pinch hit with his best-hitting SP off the bench. He could bring his best runners and hitters back into the game at critical times.
I think "tie" might be a more beneficial solution to prevent marathon games, rather than just a long games. In my world, there could be role for tie after 14-15 innings but not 12. I understand that this is entirely subjective and the same arguments against a 12-inning tie can be used against it.
I really appreciate your insights. I wonder if the true cost of chasing steals is higher in a standard draft than in an auction, or if it just seems that way. In a draft, reaching for <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SB</span></a> in an early round has a very tangible opportunity cost...you miss the opportunity to draft one of 12-15 other more valuable players (until you turn comes around again). In an auction, paying a few dollars above projected value to acquire SBs has a seemingly less tangible impact on your draft, especially if your wallet is full at the time of the bid. By overspending, you lose some purchasing power, but you don't know exactly where it will fall and you can control where it won't fall. If you want one of those 12-15 players than you would have missed in a standard draft, you can still bid on them in an auction.
Obviously, the true cost of chasing SBs in an auction will depend upon how the individual markets react to the scarcity, but I wonder if there is a market inefficiency which is unique to auctions which can be predicted based upon study of market psychology. Probably an article unto itself.
Edgy crowd in February, lol
On one hand you have organizational goals, which I think place the highest priorities on building for/competing for championships...not necessarily winning the most present and future games. One the other hand, you have players and coaches who approach each individual game with the sole goal of competing to win one that day. It is very hard for them not to compete to the fullest, which is why you won't see a forfeit. I don't think any organization wants to open the door to the possibility that it's OK not to compete, because where would you draw the line? Don't risk injury by running out a ground ball to the shortstop? The unwritten rules of baseball serve the purpose (among other things) of keeping the players focused on competing the right way. That is why you see players get <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=HBP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('HBP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">HBP</span></a> for flipping a bat...an act which undoubtedly does not serve the purpose of winning future games when you factor in the injuries and suspensions which follow. Forfeiting a game would violate such ideals.
Great article....from the opening quote through the succinct summary of the remarkable progress that Diaz has achieved as a baseball player.
I read it that <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=GB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('GB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">GB</span></a> pitchers had fewer strikeouts and MORE walks...worst of both categories, although the correlation was very low. There is a group of ground ball pitchers who don't miss bats. They may be responsible for the lower Ks and higher BBs of the group as a whole.
With <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=66539">Scooter Gennett</a></span> on the DL and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=58880">Dee Gordon</a></span> suspended, who do you like most in the short term: <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=59021">Hernan Perez</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=67093">Yadiel Rivera</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=67884">Colin Walsh</a></span>, or Migel Rojas (sorry for such depressing options).
I don't know if this is the best place to mention it, but since you referenced <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=cFIP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('cFIP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">cFIP</span></a> numerous times...
cFIP and <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=DRA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('DRA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">DRA</span></a> are currently reading as '0' on the player cards. You can find cFIP in sortable stats, but it would be easier for many of us if the info was on the player pages. Thanks.
Thanks for the link. Would not have figured it out on my own...and very happy that I don't have to think about it anymore.
You stumped me. Who is the Walrus? By process of elimination, I came up with Travis 'Paul' Jankowski.
You gotta love that <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=27600">Boog Powell</a></span> is at least a lefty. Virtually nothing else in common with the Baltimore legend of same name...who'd be halt way to 1b in 4.1 sec (on a good day) and who hit 339 HRs in his career. Are the 2 related?
The fantasy fanatic in me says give him 40% of a hit (especially since he is my <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=MI" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('MI'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">MI</span></a> in an NL-only league). The mathematician in me says no hit...since he will most likely get 4 hits if he hit 10 balls just like that one, so why not count that particular <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=AB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('AB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">AB</span></a> as one of his 6 outs? The baseball fan in me says "good AB"....and is confident that people smarter than me have already figured out a way to quantify that. The logician in me says that what Alexi Ramirez does on the fielding end of a well hit <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=GB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('GB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">GB</span></a> ground ball of it shouldn't influence how the AB is scored, one way or another....which is kinda how try to do it now. So, I don't think you have presented a very strong argument that Kiki's AB should be scored differently, but I do think you have raised a good question of what stats we should be paying most attention to.
We pay through 4th place in our NL-only keeper auction league. Prospects (still in the minors) are drafted sequentially, beginning with the 5th place finisher. The rest of the players are auctioned. You are always playing for something...either money or a higher draft pick.
Jeff, I really enjoy <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/column/The_Quinton/">The Quinton</a>.
Speaking from my more limited experience in keeper leagues, there are two goals which I try to balance on draft day. The first is just as you have described....to identify where the market is going and to take advantage of its inefficiencies. The second is to make sure that I spend my money. And that can be a challenge when the types of players that are being overvalued are all of the "good" players.
In order to spend your money, I think you need to have a plan. If your plan is to be patient and not overspend on top players, then you need to keep an eye on the remaining player pool and the budgets of your competitors. It only takes one or two other players with your same approach to engage you into bidding wars over the intermediate players. This is something to be aware of and avoided.
A somewhat easier plan to execute (though perhaps less efficient) is to overspend with the market on one or two top players. That takes some of the pressure off if the bargains don't come until much later in the draft. Knowing my home league, I have tended to overspend early so that I can at least be selective about which players I am overspending on. I have debated about how much I should just build in a "good player premium" into my auction values, but I have decided against this for the reason that doing so would push me towards overspending with the market and reduce my ability to discern true values.
I believe that the situation that you described above, where the overspending is in pitching, is a situation where spending your money is less of a concern. If the market drives you toward finding bargains in the middle tiers of hitting, it is easier to spend $260 than if the bargains are in middle-tier pitching. Regardless, you need to pay attention to what is happening and react accordingly.
Thank you for your efforts.
I guess Greg doesn't think much of the "veteran" options...nominating a rookie as the best veteran bargain, lol.
Thanks for asking. Was going to ask myself, but feared that my ignorance would be further exposed...
Very informative and entertaining. A gold standard for position battle write ups!
A few thoughts:
1. No sure that bring a family member to work is anything more than a benefit...in this a case a benefit that was extended to exactly 1 player for a period of 1 season.
2. If LaRoache is going to argue that this "established practice" is a "condition of his employment", must he not also argue that it is condition of employment for every member of the CWS...or even an "established practice" for every MLB in the country....that all MLB players be allowed to bring their families into all clubhouses at all times.
3. If LaRaoche is going to argue that the "established practice" applies only to him, then it seems like he has a very weak argument. Are we really talking about a "labor" issue, or a specific contractual issue between employer and employee.
4. Lets be clear. All MLB players have unique contracts which provide them with unique compensations, incentives and benefits. What goes for one does not go for all. It seems to me that LaRoache's dispute is a contractual one, then the contractual arrangement between him and the CWS (whatever that might be) should prevail. Not sure collective bargaining arguments apply since we are not talking about collective "established practices".
Great caption! Nice chart to demonstrate the As retooling cycle.
Off the top of your head, are you aware other AL arms who are at risk to be dealt before the deadline? Seems like a hard list to assemble now since most of the teams have a decent chance to be contending.
I thought this was a fair analysis of the situation. In contrast, Most of the articles written about this injury are similar to criticisms that might have been written about <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Jimmy+Rollins">Jimmy Rollins</a></span> had he been picked off to lose the game...stating the obvious in retrospect, even though the Dodgers rotation was a 'nonevent' to them before this happened. And to put it in perspective, a SP going on extended DL is a common event compared to a good base runner getting picked off at second base.
To be fair to the Dodgers, you have to consider their global strategy and the risk that it exposed them, too. All rotations are going to lose SP this season and be forced to use spot starters. Given the history of the Dodgers pitchers, perhaps they are at greatest risk. But you also need to consider the risk of signing a 32 y.o. SP to a 6 year $200 million contract (Greinke in this case).
Given the strength of the Dodgers minor league pitchers, and the quality of current SP who will (hopefully) return to the rotation this year, I think that the decision to not resign Greinke is very defensible as part of a next-6-years plan. The downside is that injuries to the rotation are more likely to expose the team to spot starts by the likes of Bolsinger, Beachy, and Frias. Also, if the Dodgers make they playoffs, they will go in without a dominant #2 pitcher. I think the latter is the greatest downside of not resigning Greinke, but I would also wonder if the Dodgers grand strategy includes a plan to add an ace at the trade deadline, for a playoff run. They certainly have saved the money for it, and they should be able to someone strong and healthy for a lot less that the $200 million/6 years that would have had to pay Greinke to assume that role. In the big picture, I don't think the loss of <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Brett+Anderson">Brett Anderson</a></span> is as big of a deal as it is being made out to be.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=67143">Vincent Velasquez</a></span>, Phillies, lost prospect status by 5 innings last year. Where would he fit, if at all, on this list?
I don't see the point in disparaging leagues that are different than the ones you plan in (or the fans who play in them). I play in a 5x5 league that dates back to when the standings were calculated by hand based upon the box scores which appeared in the newspaper. It is a deep, keeper, NL only league with serious baseball fans. It sounds similar to one of the leagues leagues you play in except we use Avg and RBIs instead of <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=OBP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('OBP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">OBP</span></a> and <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SLG" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SLG'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SLG</span></a>. Both our leagues use SBs, which I think we agree are a fantasy baseball stat which doesn't correlate with real-world value or figure into the calculation of wRC+. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. But SBs (along the <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=HR" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('HR'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">HR</span></a> potential) were the primary reason that J.J. gave Polanco the edge, despite Yelich's superior OBP (and wRC+). It is a fantasy article and the parameters by which Polanco bested Yelich's were clearly defined. If your leagues differ, you should adjust accordingly.
Beachy not looking so peachy, either.
I don't come here for humor...but I most definitely appreciate a good hoax. I like that it was all in. Well done.
Regarding the Cubs, I don't see why Baez or Castro wouldn't be tradable. Yes, they are 'damaged', but you imply that the Cubs would overvalue them and the Phillies wouldn't be interested. While you might be right, it's possible the Cubs might find at least one of them expendable. And the Phillies should be interested in acquiring young (22 and 25 y.o.) players with upside. I don't see either of these players as having excessive risk, just that the risk is more evident.
Also, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70408">Dan Vogelbach</a></span> is a potential trade chip who is currently blocked by <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57514">Anthony Rizzo</a></span>.
Greatly enjoyed the read. Thanks.
Keith, nice article. I am sure it is challenging to write.
I think it would be helpful if you would write a brief explanation (no more than 1-2 sentences) after each of the "other options". As it is, I have no idea why you think players like <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=49082">Jose Tabata</a></span> and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70472">Adam Morgan</a></span> might return value. Yet Tabata's name is on here every week. He doesn't appear to have much opportunity for increased ABs, or much fantasy appeal even if he gets them (to me, at least). It is often hard for me to tell if these are players that I could consider adding or if they are on the list because you had to pick someone.
An example is <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70620">Corey Knebel</a></span>. To my eye, not much distinguishes him from other RPs who are in the range of 9-10 K/9, but it is extremely helpful to me that you have explained (in past articles) that he could have an opportunity to close this season. Thanks.
I suggest you click the link "the first stash list" in the first sentence of the article...explains who is eligible for the list and how they are ranked.
Overall, this is an outstanding feature if you understand its purpose, but it is not very helpful if you view it as a list of top prospects.
Not a fan of Goodell, but I cited the Saints as an example that organizational people can actually be punished when their actions cause damage and bring shame upon an organization.
The author seems reluctant to assign any consequences to the actual perps in this case (since organizations don't run on individual brain power). Perhaps a weak spot for people in the industry...which is understandable. But I don't place ALL of the blame upon the Cardinal organization for failing to inform its employees that corporate espionage is wrong. Sadly, personal responsibility is too easily eluded these days.
It is very difficult to propose a single punishment which:
a. fits the crime
b. satisfies the masses
c. serves as an effective deterrent
The problem with your proposed solution is that punishment directed exclusively toward an entire organization does not hold any single individual directly accountable. When you blame everyone, you blame no one. Regardless of what “protocols and best practices” the Cardinals employ (or don’t) to discourage this type of behavior, the crime was committed by individual people who knew that it was wrong and who should have known that it was illegal. I don’t believe that these people should be protected from or spared from punishment by MLB.
You imply that this type of team-on-team violation is fundamentally different than the case of players taking steroids. While this is undeniable, you could also argue that there are some parallels. Teams fielding multiple players on steroids could have a competitive advantage over teams that don’t have such players. Perhaps the “steroid advantage” could rival that of the “data advantage” on the team level. It is highly likely that tangible benefits are realized by a team when its players enjoy a “steroid advantage, and such activity ultimately has team-on-team implications. Therefore, if you argue that the Cardinals should be held accountable in the hacking case, shouldn’t you also argue that teams should be punished for failing to employ “protocols and best practices” which discourage steroid use? And if we punished teams for steroid use, instead of players, would this be as effective a deterrent? I think we can agree that it probably wouldn’t be.
I would propose that MLB handle this situation very similarly to how it handled the steroid scandal…suspend all those who were directly involved for a length of time which is proportional to their involvement. The New Orleans Saints bounty program suspensions provide a nice example of how this could work. Saints GM was suspended for ½ season, Saints HC Sean Peyton was suspended for 1 year, and Saints DC Greg Williams was suspended indefinitely (and later reinstated after about 18 months). In the case of the Cardinals, one might consider punishments of ½ season to 2 seasons, depending on whether the violator was directly involved in the planning of the hack or became aware of it later and failed to take proper action.
Such as punishment would directly penalize those responsible for the violations. It would not penalize the team and fans by placing the Cardinals at a competitive disadvantage for years to come (beyond temporarily losing the services of valued employees). This seems appropriate, as regardless of the motivation of the hackers, I think we can all agree that players and loyal fans do not deserve to be punished. Further, I think this would be largely accepted by the public, just as the public has accepted player suspension for steroid use. Finally, this would be and extremely effective deterrent against future hackers. Like the players, if the careers of organizational personnel in jeopardy and the risk becomes prohibitive.
If he was successfully using "grip enhancements" before, why would he stop?. It doesn't appear that MLB is policing this issue any differently than in the past...which is indifference toward those who are subtle about it.
This is awesome. Thanks.
Like the stock market...some people try to get rich on penny stocks and others find success in discerning which blue chips will perform the best.
Great article. The gist is clear.
As someone not experienced with neural networks, I do not understand what is being referenced on the X-axis of your neural network. At .8, are we talking about a pitcher who has an 80% chance of injury on the next pitch or a pitcher who has an 80% greater chance of injury?
Are you concerned the 2 ABs in which Polanco didn't get a hit? Perhaps he needs to work on that....
Thanks for responding. You correctly summarized my position. I agree that it is very useful to be able to identify which players are likely to outperform/underperform Pecota.
I tend to think of "breakout" as coinciding with a player changing his skill set, but I do see the utility of defining it in terms of Pecota projections, understanding that a breakout for 2013 might actually mean a skill improvement which occurred in 2012, but which hasn't yet accrued enough data to be refected in Pecota projections.
Two corrections to my comments:
David Ortiz Tav in 2013 was .332, compared to Projected 2013 Tav of .297 and actual 2012 Tav of .343.
Your zone distance trend is for 2012 data, and I had incorrectly attributed to 2013. This does a make a difference.
However, since most of these players performed better in 2012 than 2013, the questions still remain as to when the breakout occurred and whether the pitchers were predicting it or reacting to it. It seems as though some of these players had their better year in 2012 and that pitchers changed their approach in 2012. So at the very least, the pitchers adjusted very rapidly.
Sorry about the confusion.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
If you are going to claim that these players "broke out" because they exceed 2013 Tav projections, then you need to defend that Tav projections (which assume regression toward the mean) were an accurate refection of the batter's baseline ability heading into the 2013 season.
Looking at your first chart, these batters are all good hitters who had very strong 2012 seasons. Is it possible that the pitchers were reacting to their strong 2012 seasons rather than employing some mystical method to identify that these hitters would break out in 2013? I would argue that this might be the case.
Looking at the 2012 Tavs, it is apparent that most most of these players actual had worse Tavs in 2013 (the "breakout year"). On the whole Tav went down by .010 per batter in 2013. Only 3 of 10 players posted better Tavs in 2013(than 2012)and only 2 of 10 players exceeded 2012 by more than .005.
For example, looking at David Ortiz, who had the highest zone distance trend, his projected Tav was .297. He exceed this projection in 2013 with a .309. You could argue that his zone distance trend of .0012 predicted this breakout. However, his Tav in 2012 was .343 which is substantially higher that the Tav he produced in 2013. You could argue that pitchers recognized the strong 2012 season, reacted by pitching him further away from the center, causing him to REGRESS in 2013 back to a Tav of .309.
It may be that pitchers are not using some unidentified proprietary information to project improvements in hitting ability. It may be that they are doing a better job of recognizing after it occurs than Pecota does.
Great article. Easy to understand, informative and credible.
I should have added option C...which is how much you are willing to pay for a player (before unanticipated in-draft adjustments). This is not the same number as A. There is no reason for you to pay an 85/15 price for hitter if you anticipate that most hitters will be sold at 70/30 pricing.
You can prepare a value list with one of two goals in mind:
A. What you think a player is really worth.
B. What you think a player will cost.
You may believe in A, but you can't ignor B.
Lets say you believe in an 85/15 valuation, but market adjustments cause you to buy a team at auction that is 75/25. And you end up buying all of your hitters for less than their 85% price and most of your pitchers for more than their 15% price. Then you have to ask yourself...would it have been easier to prepare a 75/25 valuation, or to stick with the 85/15 valuation knowing that you'd need to make adjustments. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, but obviously someone like Mike should publish valuations that do not require his readers to make more adjustments than are necessary.
Excellent article. If one accepts the premise that it is necessary to compete successfully in almost all of the Roto categories to win a league, then one can not escape the fact that one must bid competitively in almost all of the Roto categories AT MARKET PRICE.
If one values production differently than the market, then one will almost certainly purchase excessive production in some categories and deficient production in others. If one overvalues some categories (compared to the market), one will purchase excessive production (more production than is necessary to win a category) and waste money. If one undervalues some categories (compared to the market), one will have a very difficult time purchasing enough production in those categories to win the league.
Cheer up, man. I'll trade you Andrew McCutcheon and future considerations for Ben Revere, Andrew Cashner, and a beer.
Great article. I am also am in an 11-team, NL-only, 5x5-keeper-max league that will be drafting in the near future. Inflation in our league is typically 25-30%. In my experience, the top players typically go at their "true value plus inflation" (or less) most of the time. When top players go for value plus inflation, then the initial inflation rate carries to the remaining players. You will not get a price break on middle and lower tier players like you often do in redraft leagues. The inflation rate only goes down when bidders pay in excess of value plus inflation, and this doesn't always happen.
It is very important to know this and plan for it. If you look at the non-keeper expert league prices (like LABR and Tout wars), the middle and lower tier players usually go at a discount because the bidders had to pay a premium to get their top tier players. The excess money spent on top tier creates "deflated" prices for next tiers. But in a keeper leagues, these next tier players will go for "inflated" prices unless there is overspending on the top tier players. As draft goes along, it is often advantageous to grab any $7-8 player that comes along rather than wait for one that best suits your needs.
While it is easy for me to say this, I am usually one of the guys who leaves money on the table.
Thanks. As someone who is trying to put together my own values for just an NL-only league, I appreciate the monumental task you have undertaken to create these values and keep them up to date. This alone is worth the price of a premium subscription. Thanks.
Jeurys Familia at $7 in NL only? Is this a typo, or do you think he has a shot at closing?