Skip to content

Tim Raines > Lou Brock

Jan 5, 2012, 11:30 AM EDT

Tim Raines

Tim Raines is not going to be on the list of names (er, probably name) when the Hall of Fame inductees are announced on Monday.  But as we’ve argued over and over again around here, he should be. But he has time. Like Bert Blyleven, it will take some years and some persuading and eventually — hopefully — the voters will see the light.

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle has seen the light.  And I want to highlight it just so that the anti-Raines camp can’t do what so many anti-Blyleven types used to do and claim that it was just a cabal of deranged bloggers who pushed his candidacy.  The part I want to highlight is this:

Hall of Fame leadoff hitter Lou Brock, whose career steals crown was swiped by Henderson, reached base fewer times than Raines (3,833) and had a lower on-base percentage (.343) and lower stolen-base success rate (75.3 percent). In fewer plate appearances, Raines had more homers and RBIs.

As Shea notes, Raines suffers because he wasn’t Rickey Henderson. Well, duh, no one was except Rickey Henderson. He is in the inner-circle of the inner-circle of all-time greats.  But Lou Brock is a Hall of Famer too. And if there’s room for him in Cooperstown, there has to be room for Raines too, doesn’t there?

  1. saints97 - Jan 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    It really not even close, and I am a Cardinals fan.

    • 78mu - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

      I’ve been a Cardinal fan since going with the Cub Scouts down to Sportsman’s Park and can still remember as an 8 year old kid watching on tv when the team won the 1964 WS.

      My friends and I would take the Redbird Express to get left field bleacher seats just to cheer for Brock and Flood. He was always a great player to watch.

      But Brock was never the hitter or base stealer Raines was. Put them on the same team and Brock would ride the bench while Raines would play every day.

  2. thefalcon123 - Jan 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    I say this as a die-hard Cardinals fan…
    ….but Lou Brock was very, very overrated. His 109 OPS+ is the worst of any member of the 3,000 hit club, he never posted an OPS+ above 127, posted a +.800 OPS just twice (.821 was his career high). He was an average defensive corner outfielder and his career 39.1 bWAR ranks him just heard of Al Oliver and just behind Carney Lansford and Frank Howard. (fWAR is a bit friendlier, giving him 53.4 WAR, just behind Vern Stephens).

    Basically Brock would hit .300/.350/.415 with 50 steals and 20 CS. That’s good, but probably not even All-Star level. He just happened to do it every single season for 19 years. No question that Tim Raines was better than Lou Brock at all.

    • saints97 - Jan 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

      Brock was a terrible defensive corner outfielder, not that Raines was any good defensively either. He was a fair amount better than Brock, though.

  3. missthemexpos - Jan 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    Raines suffers more for the fact that his best years were in Montreal, than that he wasn’t Ricky Henderson.

  4. Kyle - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    Unfortunately, Lou Brock the player isn’t a very high standard to compare against, but if it works to give Raines the credit he deserves then I’m all for it.

    • paperlions - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM

      While true, Brock was elected as a “FIRST BALLOT” HOFer, who waltzed in with 79.7% of the vote.

      Raines was better than Brock at pretty much everything, much more power, much better at getting on base, better at stealing bases, better in the field….if there is any way to think Brock should be in the HOF, there is no case for not electing Raines.

  5. florida76 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

    Tim Raines deserves to be in Cooperstown, but it’s debatable whether or not he was a better player than Lou Brock. The failure of statistics is not understanding them in the proper context. Brock played most of his career in the pitching dominant 1960s, when it was more difficult for hitters. Put Raines in the 1960s, and his numbers certainly drop.

    Brock also owns two other advantages over Raines. First, he led his team to three Fall Classics, and played well, especially in the ’67 Series versus Boston. The Cards won two titles with Brock, playing a key role, and Raines never won anything. Second, Brock went on to achieve 3000 hits, while Raines had a cocaine problem during his career.

    Overall, both players are about equal.

    • thefalcon123 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

      “Tim Raines deserves to be in Cooperstown, but it’s debatable whether or not he was a better player than Lou Brock. The failure of statistics is not understanding them in the proper context. Brock played most of his career in the pitching dominant 1960s, when it was more difficult for hitters. Put Raines in the 1960s, and his numbers certainly drop.”

      Behold! The magic of OPS+! Is measures what a player’s OPS was against the league average! So, if a players OPS was 10% higher than the league average, his OPS+ is 110! If it is 10% lower, it is 90! Raines’ career OPS+ was 123 to Brock’s 109. Brock’s best season was a 127 OPS+, which would which would have been Raines’ 9th best.

    • Ari Collins - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

      Perhaps you want to give Brock extra credit for his excellent play in the postseason, which was way way better than Raines’ postseason play, but Raines did more to get his teams into the postseason than Brock did with his play in the regular season, so it’s hard to say he led his team to the championship more than Raines did.

      The cocaine problem shouldn’t knock Raines in my opinion, since it didn’t impact his play at all, but if you want to moralize, that’s your concern.

      As to comparing across eras, that’s the easy one to tackle. OPS+ adjusts for era, comparing the player’s on-base percentage and slugging to the average OPS that season. Brock had a 109 OPS+ – 9% better than average for his career. Raines had a 123 OPS+ – 23% better than average for his career. In other words, Raines was better compared to the players in the ’80s than Brock was compared to the players in the ’60s.

      The difference was actually greater than that, since OPS+ does not adequately weigh OBP and completely ignores baserunning, two areas that Raines was far superior in. wRC+ takes these into account properly, resulting in Brock being 15% above average (OPS+ also downgrades him, since his baserunning was valuable) and Raines 34% above average.

      And, of course, Raines was a superior defender.

      Point is, ding him a bit for cocaine and poor postseason play if you want, but in the regular season, which should be like 95% of what you look at, Raines was way way way better than Lou Brock.

      • proudlycanadian - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

        In other words, the Rock was much better than Brock!

      • florida76 - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

        Please explain how OPS+ accounts for the higher pitching mound during the 1960s.

      • bravojawja - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:59 PM

        florida: I’m not a stathead, but the idea of OPS+ is to compare players against their peers. Nobody is saying Raines’ numbers would be the same or worse or better in the 60s than the 80s, they’re saying that compared to others in the 80s, he was 23% better. Brock, OTOH, was just 9% better than his peers in the 60s.

        It’s impossible to compare era to era; the best you can do is compare players to their contemporaries — the players who played under the same conditions and circumstances (whites only, higher mound, smaller ballparks, and *sigh* PEDs).

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

        Please explain how OPS+ accounts for the higher pitching mound during the 1960s.

        Because everyone was affected by the higher pitching mound. Let’s take some hypotheticals:

        60s: higher pitching mound so let’s say the average hitter was a .275/.350/.400 or 750OPS guy. That would be league average. If you hit 10% worse (675 OPS), you’d be a 90OPS+ guy and if you hit 10% better (825OPS), you’d be a 110 OPS+ guy.

        90s: lower mound, smaller parks, steroid era [blah blah blah] so we’ll say the average hitter was a .275/.375/500 or 875OPS hitter. If you were 10% worse (788OPS), you’d be a 90OPS+. If you were 10% better (963OPS), you’d be a 110OPS+ guy.

        The + part denotes against league average. 10% better/worse than the league is 10% better/worse regardless of year. The actual OPS is what matters. For instance, the two guys in question we get:

        Brock – .293/.343/.410 – 753 OPS – 109OPS+
        Raines – .294/.385/.425 – 810 OPS – 123 OPS+

        Raines is 7.6% better in unadjusted OPS, but 12.8% better against league average.

        Does that help?

      • Ari Collins - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM

        OPS+ compares you to everyone else in the same situation. Everyone was dealing with the higher mound. Brock was 9% better than the other people dealing with the higher mound. Raines was 23% better than the other people not dealing with the higher mound. Raines’ better offense wasn’t just better than Brock’s because of the lower mound — Raines was better compared to his contemporaries than Brock was compared to HIS contemporaries.

    • nategearhart - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

      How can you say unequivocally that Brock “led” his team to three World Series? His first was in 1964, the year he was traded to St Louis. He only played in 100 games for the Cards, and as the “new guy” probably didn’t do much leading. In 1967, he had the fourth highest OPS+ on the team, so I guess you could say he Michael Young’d the Cards to the World Series. And I defy you to say that Bob Gibson didn’t “lead” the Cards to the WS in 1968.
      I’m saying, I think you need to define “led” a little better, because Brock was certainly never the best player on any of those teams.
      Also, I don’t get “Brock went on to achieve 3000 hits, while Raines had a cocaine problem during his career.” It sounds like “Did you bring your lunch to school, or did you ride the bus?” They have nothing to do with each other. But regardless, as it says above, Raines got on base more often than Brock, which is more important than hits. His on base percentage was higher than Brock’s which is more important than hits. Raines made 1200 fewer outs in only 900 fewer plate appearances. He was way better than Brock.

      • tmohr - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

        It must be noted that the Cardinals were 28-30 when they acquired Brock in 1964. With him, they went 65-39.

      • nategearhart - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM

        Noted, tmohr. Thank you. I didn’t catch that.

      • paperlions - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

        All Ryan Theriot knows is that the Cardinals were in 1st place when he was starting SS.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      Overall, both players are about equal.

      thefalcon123 took care of one set of stats, here’s a few more:

      Peak [oWAR]:
      Brock – 67-71: 4.6, 4.1, 2.7, 2.7, 5.6 = 19.7 (~4 oWAR a season)
      Raines – 83-87: 5.5, 5.8, 6.5, 5.7, 6.1 = 29.6 (~6 oWAR a season)

      Raines also destroys him in total oWAR [64.8 to 43.9]. They are really not similar at all.

      [note I removed defense, which only helps Raines further]

      • drewsylvania - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:28 PM

        Very good posts by churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged. You lay out the facts well. I’d love to see a rebuttal or retraction from florida.

  6. zzalapski - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    “Raines never won anything”

    He was with the Yankees when they won the World Series in 1996 and 1998.

    • florida76 - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      True, an aging Raines was on those Yankee teams in 1996 and 1998, but his contributions were minimal compared to what Brock did for those 1960s Cards teams. Brock was spectacular in the ’67 Series.

      Had Raines not developed a cocaine problem, he might have led the Expos to a title, but that never happened.

      OPS+ also fails to count the racism players like Brock had to overcome during the 1960s, statistics must be viewed in the proper context as I said before.

      • pmcenroe - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

        lol what? racism is now a context for baseball statistics? Well I guess that proves Jackie Robinson was better than Ty Cobb, glad we finally solved that one.

      • thefalcon123 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

        “OPS+ also fails to count the racism players like Brock had to overcome during the 1960s, statistics must be viewed in the proper context as I said before.”

        You’re attempt that elevate Lou Brock by claiming his numbers were suppressed by racism does a great disservice to him. I’ve never heard a mention in his career where Brock blamed anything the racism he was almost certainly subject to.

        After seeing stats that have shown that Raines was almost certainly better than Brock, you’ve chosen to arbitrary, nonsense, unmeasurable way to claim you are correct. It’s pretty sad, actually. I’m kind of hoping someone here will dig through statistics of African Americans during the 1960s as compared to the 1980s and see how far ahead Brock and Raines the average African-American players of those era. You’ll almost certainly find that Raines was MUCH further ahead in this regard. To paraphrase Willie Mays; there were black utility infielders in the 1960s.

      • zzalapski - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

        OPS+ also fails to count the stats Raines would’ve accrued if he didn’t miss time to the strike in 1981 and collusion in 1987. Imagine what those seasons would’ve looked like.

        Would the Expos have won the 1987 NL East with a full season of Raines? Probably not (the Cards, with Jack Clark and Ozzie Smith having MVP-type seasons, finished 4 games ahead), but it would’ve been fun to find out.

  7. rj88888 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

    Tim Raines was exciting to watch on the bases. Similar to Hestor returning punts. He should make it in the Hall Of Fame.

  8. hackerjay - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

    Personally, I think it’s a disservice to Raines to compare him to Brock, because they were leagues apart in the quality of play. Brock is one of the lesser Hall members, and Raines would be in the top half. A better comparison for Raines is Tony Gwynn.
    Gwynn: .338/.388/.459 135 homers 319 SB 1383 runs 4259 total bases
    Raines: .294/.385/.425 170 homers 838 SB 1517 runs 3771 total bases

    I think Gwynn is better due to him being healthier, and his stats are on the whole a little bit better, but there isn’t a huge gap between them, and if you think that Gwynn was a no doubt Hall of Famer, then I think it would follow that somebody that was 90% of Tony Gwynn would also be a Hall of Fame caliber player.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      Times on base:

      Raines: 2605 H + 1330 BB = 3935
      Gwynn: 3141 H + 790 BB = 3931

      • hackerjay - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

        That’s one thing that’s kind of funny. If you turned 400 of Raines’ walks into infield seeing eye singles he would have been a first ballot guy, even though those hits wouldn’t have been any more useful then a walk.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        even though those hits wouldn’t have been any more useful then a walk.

        Not exactly true, the value [linear weights] of a single is higher than a walk, but I completely agree with the rest.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:54 PM

        But infield seeing eye singles have a lower linear weight. (Still higher than walks, but hackerjay’s point mostly stands.)

      • Kevin S. - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        Did Poz do the 500BB/3251B conversion to Raines’ career stat line and show he’d have waltzed into the Coop that way? I mean, I understand we should ignore this argument because Poz screwed the pooch on Joe Paterno and all, but still, we don’t need to do a one-to-one trade-off for it to become evident how valuable Rock’s walks were.

      • Kevin S. - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM

        *Didn’t* at the beginning, not Did.

        EDIT FUNCTION!

      • hackerjay - Jan 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

        I understand that a single is better then a walk, which is why I tried to make it clear that I was talking about hypothetical squib hits that are worth no more then a walk, say two out with the bases empty and the ball was fielded cleanly.

        Heck, you could probably take 600 of Raines’ walks away and turn them into 400 hits and he would have been voted in to the Hall.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

        @Kevin S

        Yes, here’s the link* and a quick post of what Raines career would have looked like if he traded 500 BBs for 325 Singles**

        Actual line: .294/.385/.425
        After the trade: .319/.373/.445

        *http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/trading-500-for-325.html
        **This is due to the linear weight of each, aka a walk is worth roughly .6 or .7 the value of a hit. Split the difference = 0.65 = 500BB:3251b

  9. billb09 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    Tim “Rock” Raines should be in the hall no doubt. If he had played anywhere but Montreal then everyone would say the same. Further note so does “Mex” Keith Hernandez belong not only did he change the way first base was played -like LT did for OLB in the NFL- he was solo clutch at the plate and a leader on a young Metropolitan’s team.
    So maybe if they start putting in players who the modern era feel belong they would not be losing money at the Hall of Fame.

    • thefalcon123 - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      Hernandez’s career OPS: .821

      Keith’s OPS in “clutch” situations:
      2 out, RISP: .821
      Late and Close: .817
      Tie Game: .811
      Within 1 run: .817
      Within 2 runs: .824

      Are know defining a player as “clutch” when he is almost exactly as good as is the rest of the time?

      • drewsylvania - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

        Quoting straight OPS isn’t a good measure, and his value is bolstered by strong defensive chops (according to his colleagues). But I wouldn’t put him in the Hall.

      • thefalcon123 - Jan 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

        @drew

        I was only addressing the “clutch” argument, in that he was basically the same hitter in clutch and non-clutch situations.

        I wouldn’t put him in, but a reasonable argument could be made for his inclusion in the hall.

  10. vegaskid21 - Jan 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    Tim Raines stubbed me on a tip. Jerk!!

  11. hushbrother - Jan 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Brock could be given extra points for his clutch hitting in three World Series, and for playing in the low-scoring 60’s. Even doing that, though, it’s pretty clear Raines at his peak was more of an impact player – more than Lou Brock, more than most players, period.

  12. PanchoHerreraFanClub - Jan 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

    I know this sounds like the old chestnut, “He feels like a HOFer”. Lou Brock’s greatest asset was his effect on the other team. When Brock got on base the other team did crazy things. He made the other team play off their game. Tim Raines never had that effect.

    Anyway, the problem here (again) is comparing someone to another player who is in or out and saying he does or doesn’t belong because so and so is in or out of the HOF.

    IMO Lou Brock is rightly in the HOF and Tim Raines belongs in the HOF not because he was as better or worst than Brock, but because Raines was a great ball player. His numbers more than prove it. Sadly, he didn’t play for the Yankees or Red Sox, else he would be in a heartbeat.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

      When Brock got on base the other team did crazy things. He made the other team play off their game. Tim Raines never had that effect

      Like what, throw out Brock while he tried to steal? Never mind that you can’t prove any of that, how about some numbers? Even though Lou Brock had 1460 more AB’s than Raines, Raines got on base 151 more times. And while Brock had 130 more stolen bases, he got caught more than twice as many times as Raines did.

      Sadly, he didn’t play for the Yankees or Red Sox, else he would be in a heartbeat.

      But he did play for the Yankees…

      • PanchoHerreraFanClub - Jan 5, 2012 at 7:28 PM

        So you are comparing Raines to Brock as your HOF argument. As I said that is wrong way to go about. Raines numbers stand on there own or they don’t. Simple I know.

        Yes, you got me, Raines had three cups of coffee with the Yankees at the end of his career. So let me repharse it for you. “Sadly, if he had played as many games for Yankees or Red Sox as the Expos he would be in in a heartbeat” Which was my point.

        As I said, Brock had an affect on the other team. You had to actually watch it to understand. As I said up front, it wasn’t a numbers argument, but as per usual you don’t get it. Some ball player play above their numbers, others don’t. Most stat heads believe that linear regression analysis of non-linear dynamics is the only way to evaluate talent. Others believe that human beings can bring added clarity to process by simply watching the game be played. As with cost accounting, the numbers tell you a great deal about a business, but the people running the business tell you even more.

        So do you believe Lou Brock isn’t a HOFer and Tim Raines is or what?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 5, 2012 at 7:47 PM

        So do you believe Lou Brock isn’t a HOFer and Tim Raines is or what?

        No, what I’m saying is that in a comparison of Brock to Raines, Brock doesn’t hold Raines jock. I completely agree that you shouldn’t base someone’s HoF candidacy on if X is in, and Y > X, then Y should be in. However, Y in this case is as good as a lot of people who were extremely worthy of induction (Tony Gwynn for example).

        Most stat heads believe that linear regression analysis of non-linear dynamics is the only way to evaluate talent

        And most people who use this term like to throw out wild claims like I quoted in the first comment, ones that aren’t based in truth. However, I don’t just follow a numbers based approach, but unfortunately, even at my relatively young age, I’ve watched two many damn games (between MLB/NFL/NBA/Soccer) to keep track of everything. So when I think so and so was a great hitter, I try to confirm it by looking at the numbers. Not making radical claims like “Brock had an affect on the other team”.

        Raines numbers stand on there own or they don’t. Simple I know.

        He’s one of the best leadoff hitters in MLB history. His numbers speak to themselves, as long as people don’t look at them and try to recreate this:
        http://xkcd.com/904/

      • PanchoHerreraFanClub - Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 PM

        I was not throwing out a wild claim. I was making an observation and expressing an opinion about some Brock’s intangibles. I am sorry that you don’t know a sweet swing or a great catch or exciting player when you see one. Perhaps with a little more age you will develop that ability. Did you know that Jackie Robinson when he was on third would go more than half to the plate and get back to third? It really did shake the other team up a bit. Does it show in his stats? Probably not.

        Stats are part of the evaluation process (and in the HOF voting should be the major part), but not the only part. It is kind of like trying to determine how a beautiful woman based only on her physical stats. A beautiful woman offers so much more…

      • Ari Collins - Jan 6, 2012 at 12:28 AM

        I think what Church is trying to say is something along the lines of, “I’d like to see some evidence that Brock’s base-stealing had an effect on the opposing team. If it had no concrete effect on the game, it probably was’t all that helpful.”

        Not to pick on you, Pancho, but it IS a pretty extraordinary claim to say that:

        “When Brock got on base the other team did crazy things. He made the other team play off their game. Tim Raines never had that effect.”

        That’s not an observation, it’s a claim that requires evidence. And observation can be part of that evidence, but considering you’re talking about thousands of plate appearances, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.

        Also, stop with the epeen, you two. Just because Church hasn’t reached middle age and likes to back things up with evidence doesn’t mean he’s too young to appreciate a great catch, or that he doesn’t think that visual scouting is valuable too. And just because Pancho said he would’ve been more recognized if he’d played with the Yankees means we need to snarkily point out that he played with them a little towards the end of his career.

        Group hug?

      • meyerwolf - Jan 6, 2012 at 8:33 AM

        I never saw Raines or Brock play, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m a European who follows baseball from afar, though I read HBT every day and the usual sites to keep up to speed. I’d consider myself a proponent of sabermetics, probably because I like Craig and Poz so much.

        That being said, you have to watch out that you do not completely demistify the game of baseball and make it purely a game of numbers. What I’m trying to say is that Pancho is right: a player can be more valuable than his numbers show. If, for example, Jackie Robinson did indeed when he was on third would go more than half to the plate and get back to third, it might have resulted in more errors by the opposing team, passed balls, more singles for his team mates, whatever. It doesn’t really show up in the stats, though.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM

        The problem is that errors and passed balls and such ARE stats. They DO show up. They can be counted and weighed, and the truth is that the secondary effects of stolen bases (the batter’s chance of getting a hit, passed balls, errors, etc.) are an overall negative.

        Of course, the primary effect of a stolen base more than makes up for that, as long as the runner is a high-percentage thief.

    • meyerwolf - Jan 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

      Not really though, do they? At least they don’t show up in a discussion on a guy’s hall of fame merits.

      Purely hypothetical: Player A is lightning fast, allowing him to go and stand halfway to home when he’s on third without getting picked off. This puts extra pressure on the defense, (still hypothetically) resulting in more a) errors, b) hits, c) passed balls, d) runs scored.

      Now of course these things get ‘recorded’ and shows up in stats. But they don’t show up in a guy’s personal stats. There’s no way for us to really grasp the effect his “halfway to home” move had by merely glancing at his stats 50 years later. In that sense I think Pancho and other saber-critics are right when they say you can’t solely measure a guy’s worth by his stats.

      I will immediately add, though, that these “extra’s” aren’t very likely to make a guy a hall of famer when he isn’t.

      • Ari Collins - Jan 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM

        They may not show up in an individuals’ stats, but they show up when we study baserunners, and the truth is that hitters do WORSE when a baserunner is threatening to steal. Not better. The baserunner is MORE of a distraction to the HITTER than the PITCHER.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches