Skip to content

Mike Schmidt: “Michael Young could retire tomorrow, and he would be a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame”

Feb 22, 2013, 8:32 AM EDT

Philadelphia Phillies infielder Michael Young stretches during a workout at the team's MLB spring training in Clearwater

Mike Schmidt is the best third baseman to ever play the game of baseball. That does not make him qualified, however, to judge talent, it seems:

Michael Young could retire tomorrow, and he would be a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame. He’s probably two Michael Young years away from being a first-ballot Hall of Famer.”

To be fair, I’m not sure if Schmidt is saying “he deserves to be a strong candidate” or “because Young is inexplicably thought of as being better than he is, he will be a strong candidate whether or not he is truly deserving.” If the latter, it’s pretty astute, because I think that Young will get a fair amount of Hall of Fame support. At least enough to last on the ballot for a few years. Unlike, say, Lou Whitaker, who is a better Hall of Fame candidate on the merits than Young is.

Beyond all of that, I don’t think Schmidt saying that Young is a Hall of Fame candidate is as silly as his comparing him to Derek Jeter:

“… he’s a little like Derek Jeter. Is he not? If he played in New York, imagine what people would be saying about Michael Young’s career. Somebody would have mentioned the Hall of Fame a long time ago.”

Maybe Young would have benefited from playing in New York, but Jeter would have been a Hall of Famer if he had played for the East Nowhere Blue Sox. I know people in Texas like to think of Young as “the Rangers Derek Jeter,” but that has never washed for me. Maybe there’s a core of truth to it regarding some perception of his intangibles or what have you, but Jeter is so clearly the superior player the comparison seems to obscure far more than it illuminates.

  1. pestiesti - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:38 AM

    Apparently, Schmidt kept his sense of perspective in his mustache.

  2. chacochicken - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM

    Michael Young is the greatest hero of our age.

  3. nategearhart - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM

    Well, he IS a professional hitter. If you hit professionally for 10 or more years, you get to be considered for the hall of fame

  4. planck16 - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:46 AM

    Apparently Mike Schmidt and Darren Daulton both believe in alternate universes.

    • badintent - Feb 23, 2013 at 3:03 AM

      So does Steven Hawkins, how’s his WAR ??? Mike Schmidt played with a corked head.

  5. cktai - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:48 AM

    He’s a bit like Jeter, so full of intangibles that there is no more room for a glove.

  6. volcom2143 - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:49 AM

    Craig . It’s really annoying your hate for Philly . Anytime I see a Philly headline on HBT , I’m almost positive you wrote it ( most times its hardly considered a story in the 1st place ) . We get it . You don’t like Philly . Grow up . And some hair .

    • nategearhart - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:53 AM

      Dude, how many games has Michael Young played for the Phillies now? Mellow out. Read the article again and try to identify how it would be any different if Young played for the Padres, for instance.

    • heyblueyoustink - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:00 AM

      Volcom, the previous Papelbon article wreaks a little of trolling, but he acknowledges Schmidt as the best third baseman of all time. There’s no hate in this one. Let’s just see how the season plays out and be quietly optimistic, becuase as far as the Phils go, I love them in an underdog role coming off a season of injury and embarrasment.

    • phillyphreak - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      There are some serious spacing issues in that comment. Probably all of his hair that got in the way of the keyboard…..

      Anywho, I’m not sure why this ruffles your feathers dude. MY isn’t a HoF player. Just because Schmidt says he is doesn’t make it so….

    • deep64blue - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      As a Philly fan I’m 100% with Craig on this one – Young may well be RAJ’s worst move, and there’s a lot of competition!!

    • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:41 AM

      volcom, Craig is only getting warmed up dude. You better grow some thicker skin or stop reading HBT.

      • volcom2143 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:20 AM

        I agree with all your comments about this article . Anyone who reads HBT daily knows where I am coming from . Craig loves to poke fun or have comments in his smug little way . That’s all I’m saying . It’s just annoying . We get it MR. Clean

      • aceshigh11 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

        I could’ve sworn you’d written “grow some thicker HAIR” the first time I browsed your post…

        …which would have been HILARIOUS, now that I think of it.

    • cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      I thought this was meant as a joke with irony and sarcasm aforethought and directed to the thin skinned Philly Phans out there. I mean, it was over the top with all the little Philly Phan buttons duly pushed even the bit about “grow some hair”. Shit, you all but invoked the sacredness of the Phanatic as “Worlds Best Mascot and iph you don’t think that then Phuk Oph”. Then I read your follow up to to Chris. Now I think you need to step back a bit from your computer. Look out a window. Take your dog for a walk. Get some air if you don’t have a dog. Consider getting a dog. Just anything where you can relax.

      Objective assessments of Mike Young are not an anti-philly crusade. They just are not.

      • raysfan1 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:21 PM

        Especially when Craig has said the same things for years about Michael Young the Texas Ranger. If his opinion had changed once the Phil’s signed him, volvcom might have had a point. Instead he’s just whining.

  7. Innocent Bystander - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    “best third baseman to ever play the game”…what about A-Rod?

    • heyblueyoustink - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      Some might say you’d have a better argument with Brooks Robinson.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM

        Or Eddie Mathews…..ARod hasn’t done enough as a 3B to be considered the best ever 3B….though, he is probably easily the best ever SS/3B….and would have been the best ever SS if he had been left at the position.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM

        Brooks is THE best defensive 3rd baseman of all time. Schmidt is the 2nd best defensive 3rd baseman of all time.

        Brooks isn’t in the top 10 best offensive 3rd baseman of all time. Schmidt is THE best offensive 3rd baseman of all time.

        Overall, Schmidt is the best 3rd baseman of all time. It really is not debatable. Believe me, don’t you think if he could have found a way to debate this point, Craig would have trolled the Phillies fans with it by now???

      • cogitobaseballergosum - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM

        Not gonna argue Schmidt as the best all-around 3rd Baseman, although there are arguments to be made. I will argue your calling him the 2nd best defensive 3rd Baseman of all time. Clete Boyer, Graig Nettles, and several others come to mind.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        Well, I guess on HBT, it doesn’t make much of a difference, but Schmidt did win 10 of those little things called “Gold Gloves”. Sure, in a case like Palmiero getting it as a first baseman who played 28 games in the field it doesn’t mean much. But for Schmidt, he was the second best fielding third baseman of all time, and made as many spectacular plays as anybody. Nobody can touch Brooks and his 16 GGs but being second to him isn’t short-changing him at all. Bringing Boyer and Nettles, who were great fielders in their own right, into the debate about Schmidt’s fielding is pretty absurd.

        Greatest fielding 3rd basemen of all time:
        1) Brooks
        2) Schmidt
        3) Everyone else

        Then you have guys like Boyer, Nettles, and more recent guys like Rolen, Chavez, and Beltre eventually will get into the conversation I am sure. But nobody else is in the conversation for the top 2.

        Just my $.02

      • cogitobaseballergosum - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:31 PM

        Wow. “Not debatable” seems a bit strong. There’s plenty of debate among baseball experts and casual fans alike about which 3rd Baseman was better defensively than others. If you believe and want to argue Schmidt as your choice, great! More power to you! But don’t confuse your opinion with irrefutable fact.

        I didn’t know anybody had ever defined what constituted a “spectacular play”, or counted how many of them each 3rd Baseman made, especially for those players from the pre-cable tv era. Are you sure Mike Schmidt made as many spectacular plays as Nettles or Boyer? Or how about the really old guys like Jimmy Collins and Pie Traynor? Do you how many spectacular plays they made?

        As for Gold Gloves, I don’t dismiss them, but it’s fairly obvious (to many, anyway) that: a) quite often offensive production comes into play in the voting (which would give Schmidt quite an edge!); and b) once a player wins one, he’s likely to have an edge in voting for several years simply by reputation. Gold Gloves are frustrating because they often get it so right, but seemingly just as often get it so wrong. I agree, 10 GGs is impressive. At the same time, he didn’t have a lot of competition. The NL during Schmidt’s era was not nearly as deep in defensive 3Bmen as the AL during Boyer’s and Nettles’ eras. How many GG’s would Boyer or Nettles have won were they not competing with Robinson? Not to mention Aurelio Rodriguez, Buddy Bell, and Don Money, who were all recognized as stellar defenders.

        I’m not saying Schmidt is not in the conversation. It just seems to me that it’s pretty ludicrous to state unequivocally that Schmidt, or anyone, is 2nd best, end of story, there is no conversation – especially in an area that’s as hard to judge as defensive prowess.

      • jwbiii - Feb 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM

        On defense, comparing anyone to Brooks Robinson is kind of like the inaugural America’s Cup race: “Ah, Your Majesty, there is no second.”

    • Kevin S. - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      Not if you only count his years with the Yankees.

    • raysfan1 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      Am I the only one who think Innocent Bystander is kidding?

    • matthew5900 - Aug 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      what the hell? he used roids so it doesn’t count

  8. heyblueyoustink - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    I don’t see the comparison to Jeter as being legitimate either. I mean when was the last time Michael Young sent out a classy gift basket including signed memorabilia to his ladies in calling?

  9. DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    Schmidty’s state of the Phillies speeches always are flowery predictions. My favorite was 1985 prediction – Steve Jeltz Rookie of the Year.

    If you listen to what he says as opposed to read it, he comes across as your church pastor talking to troubled youth “Hey, I believe in you! I look at you kids, and I see tommorows leaders!”

    • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:12 AM

      You are probably right…..there isn’t anything wrong with being optimistic and positive in your approach to life…..but it does wind up coming across as unrealistic when you take it out of context (or sometimes even if you don’t) of the interview.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        Agreed, it always strain credulity to hear some of the stuff he says. For better or worse – it’s Schmidt being Schmidt, and the guy is loyal to a T…..even though Juan Samuel never won “multiple MVP’s”, and Chris James never became a “dangerous hitter”….

  10. mybrunoblog - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    Mike Schmidt is becoming a quote factory. Unfortunately his recent quotes make him look foolish.

  11. mattintoledo - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    When the Damon HOF stirred up most recently, I checked to see how many HOF players never finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting. It was exceedingly rare. I’d be curious to do something similar to see how many HOF players had a peak season that was as low as Young’s (4.5 fWAR, 3.6 bWAR).

    Also, if Young gets even a sniff of the HOF while Trammell is on the outside looking in, I will….well, I won’t do anything. But I’ll definitely be miffed.

    • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM

      Yeah, I am amazed how of all of the 80s Tiger’s players that were good or great (Trammel, Whitaker, Lemon, Parrish, Gibson)….the only one to get any HOF love has been Morris….who was no where near as good as Trammel or Whitaker (both clear HOF talents) and was much closer to a Chet Lemon/Lance Parrish. Just weird….must be the ‘stache.

  12. royhobbs39 - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM

    Oh that Schmidt is a wily one. Notice how he did not say which Hall of Fame….

  13. jwbiii - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    Well, sure, Michael Young is a deserving Hall of Fame candidate if you’re a (really) big Hall guy. But he would need to wait until more deserving 3B candidates are inducted, like Edgar Martinez, Graig Nettles, Ken Boyer, Buddy Bell, Sal Bando, Darrell Evans, Robin Ventura, Ron Cey, Stan Hack, Toby Harrah, Bob Elliott, Heinie Groh, Matt Williams, Lave Cross, Doug DeCinces, Carney Lansford, Tim Wallach, Bill Madlock, Pedro Guerrero, Gary Gaetti, Jeff Cirillo, Ken Caminiti, Don Money, Ken McMullen, Travis Fryman, Ken Keltner, Willie Kamm, Richie Hebner, Bobby Bonilla, Arlie Latham, and probably a few others whose names escape right now. Jimmy Dykes, I guess. But Schmidt is not a big Hall guy. He turned in a blank VC ballot recently, so I’m not sure where he’s coming from here.

    • tuberippin - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM

      Everything was cool until you dropped Travis Fryman’s name.

      • jwbiii - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:49 PM

        Yeah, I don’t think much of Fryman, Cirillo, or Bonilla, but they were arguably better than Young. My point is you could argue for a Hall of Fame that includes Young, but you’d have to build an extension half way to Ithaca to do it.

      • tuberippin - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:14 PM

        I wouldn’t make an argument that any of the three you just mentioned were better than Michael Young. I’m not by any means a fan of Young nor do I think highly of the Phils picking him up (granted, for spare parts), but for a guy who has really been more of a utility infielder during his career rather than strictly a third baseman, I don’t see how you can make that argument aside from focusing strictly on WAR.

        Fryman had some better single seasons, but in the aggregate he and Young are worth about the same

  14. joejaws75 - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    Craig. Why font you just write I hate the Phillies. It would just make life easier. You basically bash them constantly

    • tfbuckfutter - Feb 22, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      Yeah Craig I agree….

      Why font you already?

      • stlouis1baseball - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:18 PM

        I am w/ buckfutter. Hahahaha! “buckfutter”…makes me laugh every time.
        Even more so when I type it. “buckfutter.” Hahahaha!

        Where was I?

        Oh…yeah Craig. Knock it off. You fon’t know one thing about Michael Young.
        You also fon’t have to bash the Phillies all the time. I fon’t appreciate it one bit.

        You know what? Phuq it. I fon’t care anymore.

  15. hushbrother - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    If Dallas was a baseball town Young would get the props he deserves for being as good as Jeter. ::eyeroll::

    Truthfully, they’re probably equals as defensive shortstops.

  16. tcb2nyc - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    Let me just defend the Dallas baseball fans here. We may not be a baseball town (F You, Josh, hope you fail miserably!) but we certainly don’t put Michael Young in the same category as Derek Jeter. They have some similar qualities, but we watch enough baseball between Spring football scrimages to know that.

  17. Joe - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM

    According to Baseball Reference’s ELO rater, Derek Jeter is the #34 hitter of all time, slotted between Rod Carew and Hank Greenberg. Michael Young is #411, right there between Lonnie Smith and Troy Glaus.

    At first I thought that this kind of underrated Young, but then I look at the WAR numbers:

    #410 Smith 36.3, #411 Young 22.1, #412 Glaus 35.0, #413 Flood 39.8, #414 Runnels 27.1, #415 Hal McRae 24.7, #416 Kuenn 22.8, #417 Victor Martinez 24.8, #418 H. Clift 36.0, #419 Cavaretta 31.8.

    (Usual caveats about WAR not being the end-all of the conversation.) Clearly the greater public overrates what Michael Young does well while underrating defense and ballpark factors.

    You have to go to #430 on the ELO rater before you get a lower-WAR player than Michael Young, and that guy is Monte Irvin, who only played 764 major league games but was clearly a superior talent.

    You have to go way down to #451 to get to a guy with a legitimately lower WAR than Micheal Young (Mike Lowell, 21.7).

    • Joe - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      Of course, there are certainly guys with lower WAR who are ahead of MY on the ELO rater. Joe Carter (15.7 WAR) is at #387. Another poster boy for overrated skills.

      ELO is dynamic. Young is now at #420.

      • raysfan1 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM

        Perhaps you should say ELO is a “Living Thing?”

  18. Dan the Mets Fan - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    Young, the next Jack Morris? Sounds about right.

    • Dan the Mets Fan - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM

      Like Jack Morris, he started every opening day! And anonymous coaches who refuse to be named said he was the one hitter in those great Rangers line-ups they truly feared pitching to!

      And he was clearly the best SS/2B/3B/DH of the 2000s.

  19. unlost1 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    how can he be a hall of famer when most fans don’t even know who he is?

  20. hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    No way he can think he’s a first ballot hall of famer. He’s being nice because there’s not much nice to say about the Phillies right now. We all know the writers have reserved that level of first-ballot hall of fameness. And nothing about Young warrants that.

    But he’ll hang on the ballot with cases made for him about intangibles (already hear about being a professional hitter, even though he’s walked just 80 times in his last 1340 PA’s), like Jack Morris, and be praised for how he did it clean. However, he is a 7-time All Star and won a gold glove (like a gold glove means much), with a career .301 BA.

  21. Kevin Gillman - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    I am not a Rangers fan, or a Phillies fan, but I have to ask, why so much hate with Young? Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer? Probably not, but the guy has proven he can hit. 6 seasons of 200+ hits, 7 seasons of hitting over .300. If he can stay healthy the next 3 seasons, he has a good shot at 3,000 hits. So why isn’t he a Hall of Fame candidate down the road?

    • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

      Kevin, please just give it up ASAP. Michael Young could hit 200 home tuns and knock in a thousand and HBT will never give him any respect. Basically, HBT is the “evening out” factor. What I mean is that the national media, and now I guess one of my favorite players of all time, say crazy positive things about Michael Young and HBT commenters will come on and say crazy negative things about the guy.

      My opinion lies somewhere in between.

      • Kevin Gillman - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        Well see, alot of these media love sabermetrics, and they go STRICTLY by those numbers. But here is what I go by, hitting a baseball is one of the hardest things to do in sports. It’s why to be successful, you must reach base 3 times out of every 10 ABs. He’s done that, and he has played in enough years to be depicted as a reliable hitter, and a good track record. In many ways he reminds me of Tony Gwynn. I am sure the HBT commentaters didn’t think much of him either, but he was an incredible hitter….a professional hitter. So is Michael Young.

        I guess I am in the middle of this too, but I surely respect Michael’s hitting.

      • Kevin S. - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM

        Actually, reaching base three times out of every ten plate appearances is pretty woeful. Yes, hitting a round ball with a round bat is the hardest thing to do in sports, but we know at this point that there is little value in treating all hits equally and ignoring alternate ways of reaching base. An empty .300 batting average just doesn’t help *that* much, especially if one doesn’t provide quality defensive value or help on the basepaths.

      • Joe - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM

        Kevin, you seem to be going STRICTLY by one number – batting average.

        That said, Michael Young has hit over .300 seven times and had a career-best .338 batting average in 2011.

        Tony Gwynn hit over .350 seven times and has a career .338 batting average.

        Gwynn played in a pitcher’s ballpark in a low-offense era. Young played in a hitters ballpark in a high offense era. Gwynn was alos a better base runner and better fielder.

        So maybe in your mind these two guys have the same basic profile – they get a lot of hits. But that alone doesn’t make them equals. Gwynn did that one thing a whole lot better than Michael Young does.

        You could make much the same argument that Carlos Pena in many ways reminds you of Harmon Killebrew: lots of homers, lots of walks, low batting average. But they obviously aren’t of the same caliber. You don’t need sabermetrics to make the distinction.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM

        Kevin, my warning to you got all thumbs downs. Trust me…there is nothing that can happen that will make HBT give Michael Young any respect. Why? Because he gets too much respect in the national media and this place is “The Equalizer.”

        If he hits .300 this year, it will be a product of hitting in CBP. if he makes no errors…well…errors don’t mean anything at all. If he wins the GG…Gold Gloves are overrated. If he’s top 5 in MVP…the BBWAA are a bunch of idiots. If he knocks in 100 runs, who cares about RBIs.

        The only way Michael Young will get respect on this board is if his WAR is 5 or better. Because, while the people on this board like to disagree, WAR is the be-all end-all for you all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Let the thumbs downs commence

    • Chris Fiorentino - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      tuns…lol. Edit function?

    • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:08 PM

      In short, because he’s been a slightly above average hitter once you account for his environment and he has been a horrible defensive player for nearly his entire career. He has been a solid and useful player for over a decade….but he has had nothing approaching a HOF career.

      • Kevin Gillman - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:26 PM

        I think a chance at 3,000 hits may differ with those opinions. And isn’t Jeter a bad defensive player too? I think sometimes media and fans alike put too much stock into stats. The last time I checked a .270 average is average, and he’s 31 points above that, in his career. And all I remember is this, even when the Rangers weren’t that good, he was the one guy that could get the big hit, driving in runs. But again, this is my opinion.

      • Kevin S. - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        Wait, what? A chance at 3,000 hits? The guy’s 36 years old, is 770 hits short, and has posted 200 hits exactly once in the past five seasons. Is he going to average the same number of hits per season over his age 36-39 years as he did through his age 31-35 years, or is he going to play well into his 40s? I mean, sure, there’s a *chance* of that happening, but not any kind of significant one. There’s also a chance that the many pitchers who couldn’t fully harness their talent in their 20s undergo a Randy Johnson-esque renaissance in their 30s and get to 300 wins, but we never include them in trying to figure out which current pitchers could get to that threshold.

    • Dan the Mets Fan - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM

      He’s still almost 800 hits short. He needs at least 4 seasons. Doubtful it happens. I don’t think he’s a hall of famer, regardless, but a guy who nobody can claim is a defensive stud who hasn’t hit a lot of HRs or RBIs or shown a good sabermetric profile is not likely to make the Hall, UNLESS, there is another Jack Morris bizarro world vortex where suddenly people start pretending he was way better than he was some years after he stops playing. Possible, but even given the dim intelligence of the average hall of fame voter, I think he does not make it unless he crosses 3,000 hits.

      Good player. Not close to a hall of famer.

      • Kevin Gillman - Feb 22, 2013 at 8:30 PM

        But all Michael has done in his entire career is hit. His worst full season was last year, where he hit .277. I just don’t understand all of a sudden why people just do not like him. Is it because he is with the Phillies? Barring any injury for the next 4 or 5 seasons, he will get an opportunity to get 3,000 hits. He is also a multi-time All-Star, which means he is among one of the better hitters in MLB. At least I am assuming that was why he made the All-Star team, since his defense isn’t that great. But he is a good fit for the Phillies, playing 3rd base. He should at least be more productive than Polacido Polanco.

  22. stlouis1baseball - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    You people need to lay off Michael Young.
    The guy is a professional hitter.

    Jimmy Rollins

  23. cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    Jeez. No one hates Michael Young. He’s a pretty decent hitter in a hitter’s park. He’s also a pretty sub par defender, baserunner and he HAS demanded a trade when he had to change positions for a better defender. These are all verifiable. That’s not hate. That there is fact. When did objectivity become an opinion?

    • crackersnap - Feb 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM

      Objectivity becomes an opinion when facts refute one’s own personal version of reality.

      Michael Young is about 9 months removed from becoming the Poster Child for the stat “Park Factor”. But this outcome will be blamed by many on “nerds in their mother’s basement”.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3053)
  2. J. Fernandez (2507)
  3. Y. Cespedes (2417)
  4. G. Stanton (2392)
  5. D. Span (2312)
  1. F. Rodney (2116)
  2. Y. Puig (2103)
  3. M. Teixeira (2007)
  4. G. Springer (1973)
  5. H. Olivera (1940)