Remember me
Forgot your username/password?
 
Print
Home>Articles

Is Edgar Martinez A HOF'er?

By Dave Fleming
January 5, 2010
 
There are a lot of baseball fans who take great umbrage at the designated hitter. I’ve never been one of those fans; I like that the National League and American League have at least one defining characteristic. In fact, I’d advocate that the AL and NL should have more difference. How about we put a kibosh on one-batter relief appearances in the NL? And what about doing away with the intentional walk in the AL?
 
Anyway, this article isn’t about the designated hitter. It’s about a designated hitter, Edgar Martinez, and whether or not he should be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame. 
 
Let’s start this discussion with a few questions:
 
1. Should designated hitters be elected to the Hall of Fame?
 
There is a strong bias against designated hitters because designated hitters do not play a defensive position. Taking two players of equal offensive output; the general perception is that a bad defensive first basemen has more value than a designated hitter.
 
To my mind, it’s a silly bias: Edgar Martinez was a fine hitter and a lousy defender. The Hall of Fame has a few players who were like that. Harmon Killebrew fits that profile: he was a great hitter, but a lousy defensive player. Rogers Hornsby was, too. Ted Williams.
 
The difference between Martinez and those other guys is contextual: Martinez played in a league that happened to have a place for all-hit, no-field players. He didn’t invent the designated hitter; he was just happened to fit the job description. Had a National League team signed Martinez, he would have been a very bad corner infielder.
 
 Should designated hitters be elected to the Hall of Fame? Of course they should be. Keeping a deserving player out of the Hall of Fame strictly on the basis of his position on (or off) the diamond would set a bad precedent.
 
2. Where should we set the standards for a designated hitter being elected to the Hall of Fame?
 
There’s the tricky question. There are no designated hitters in the Hall of Fame, so there isn’t a standard for designated hitters being elected to the Hall of Fame. We need to set the standard elsewhere.
 
This shouldn’t be too hard: after all, we already make adjustments based on defensive position: Tony Lazzeri, a second basemen, hit .292 during his career with 178 homeruns. John Olerud, a first basemen, hit .299 with 186 homeruns. Lazzeri is in the Hall, Olerud isn’t.
 
Even among great defensive players, we make adjustments: Ozzie Smith, who many consider the greatest defensive shortstop to ever play the position, is in the Hall of Fame. But Keith Hernandez, perhaps the greatest defensive first basemen to play the position, is not in the Hall of Fame, despite better offensive statistics than Ozzie Smith.
 
It seems to me that, as designated hitters get no extra credit for defense, a designated hitter would have to be an historically elite offensive player to gain entrance into the Hall of Fame.
 
3. So where does Edgar Martinez rank among the elite hitters in the game’s history?
 
Well…there are 150 hitters in the baseball Hall of Fame. Let’s start by asking where Edgar ranks among those 150 in important offensive catagories?
 
-His career batting average, .312, ranks him 55th among the Hall of Famers, along with Johnny Mize, Joe Sewell, and Fred Clarke.
 
-His career on-base percentage of .418 would rank him 14th among Hall-of-Famers, between Mickey Cochrane and Stan Musial. Let’s repeat that: Martinez is ahead of Stan Musial.
 
-His slugging percentage is .515. which ties him with Willie McCovey for 16th among all Hall-of-Fame hitters.
 
-His Adjusted OPS is 147, which ties him with Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell for 25th among the Hall of Famer hitters.
 
Another route: let’s pick some elite Hall-of-Fame hitters, and how Edgar does against them. To narrow things down a little, we’ll go with six truly great hitters who played leftfield/first base. And we’ll narrow it to players who had careers similar in length to Edgar Martinez.  
 
Six players: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Johnny Mize, Hank Greenberg, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell. Anyone doubt they were great hitters? Hall-of-Fame hitters?
 
No? Okay…how does Edgar do? Let’s look at some funky stats: Adjusted OPS (on-base plus slugging, adjusted for park and league contexts), Runs Created Per Game (RC/G), and Offensive Win Percentage (Own%), which measures the percentage of game a team of Edgar Martinez’s would do, given a neutral defense and pitching staff.
 
 
G
OPS+
RC/G
OWn%
Lou Gehrig
2164
179
10.8
.803
Jimmie Foxx
2317
163
10.0
.780
Johnny Mize
1884
158
8.4
.766
H. Greenberg
1394
158
9.3
.762
W. McCovey
2588
147
7.0
.718
W. Stargell
2360
147
7.0
.717
E. Martinez
2055
147
8.3
.712
 
Martinez is tied with Stargell and McCovey in OPS+. He is ahead of Stargell and McCovey in Runs Created per Game, mostly because RC/G doesn’t take into account league contexts. He ranks last in Offensive Win Percentage.
 
Now: showing Edgar doing badly against a few Hall-of-Famers is probably not the best way to advocate for his enshrinement. But take a look at those names again: Foxx, Gehrig, Mize, Greenberg, McCovey, and Stargell.
 
Edgar Martinez holds his own against those guys. He probably wasn’t a better hitter than those players, but he was damned close. He was one of the elite hitters in the history of the game.
 
Okay: one more…Edgar had a career batting average over .300. He had a career on-base percentage over .400. He had a slugging average over .500. How many players in history have had a slash line of .300/.400/.500?
 
.300/.400/.500 Club Members
Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Lou Gehrig
Rogers Hornsby
Ty Cobb
Jimmie Foxx
Stan Musial
Frank Thomas
Manny Ramirez
Mel Ott
Harry Heilmann
Chipper Jones
Todd Helton
Larry Walker
Edgar Martinez
 
Good company, eh?
 
 4. Is Edgar a Hall of Famer?
 
I think so, yes. Sorry to make such an abrupt close, but I have to wrap this up, as the actual Hall of Fame voting results will be announced tomorrow.
 
Remember to cast your ballots under the ‘comments’ section of my article, “The 2010 BJOL HOF Ballot.” I’ll tally the votes on Friday and announce who the BJOL readers elected sometime this weekend.
 
Dave Fleming is a writer living in Chicago, IL, where he is proud to call himself one of “the stat geeks, those get-a-lifers who are sucking all the joy out of our national pastime.” He welcomes comments, questions, and snarky put-downs from Boston Globe writers both here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com
 
 
 

COMMENTS (25 Comments, most recent shown first)

jsc1973
No one has ever raised an allegation that he was a steroid user.

And there are players who have their best seasons in their 30s. There always have been. Some of them are in the Hall of Fame, like Dazzy Vance and Zack Wheat. Some of them maybe should be, like Jose Cruz Sr.

Edgar, like Dazzy and Cruz, among others, got a late start to his MLB career. I imagine he was probably highly motivated to extend his career as long as possible and make up for the three years he spent waiting for the Mariners to realize Jim Presley couldn't carry his jock.

As far as the DH issue goes, I've always said that a DH should be treated the same as a bad first baseman when the issue of Hall of Fame standards comes up. A bad first baseman is what most DHs would be if there were no DH, and such a player carries no positive defensive value. In Edgar's case, he probably would have been a good first baseman--the Mariners took him off the field to make sure his bat stayed in the lineup--but he still didn't actually contribute that way.

As a hitter, though, he was as tough as you could ever hope for.

I'm not a Mariners fan, but Edgar always seemed like a Hall of Famer to me.
9:08 AM Oct 12th
 
kcale
There's just one little problem... he played far better in his mid-late 30's than he did in his mid-late 20's. How many players did that other than Barry Bonds? Seems pretty obvoius to me.
9:07 PM Jan 17th
 
ventboys
Just a thought, a twist on Bill's ABCD Hall standards...

Also posted in reader's posts as "Grading the Candidates"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Category A- No arguments, they just get in with 90+ percent of the vote, get their plaque, and go off to do card shows.

Category B- Little argument, and most of the argument is over whether they deserve to be first ballot Hall of Famers or not. Alomar is the example this year, he just missed. Either they get in on the first try (Fisk, Gwynn, etc.) or in the first 2 or 3. Again, they get their plaque and they go off to do card shows.

Category C- Major massive arguments. They stay on the ballot for years, and build momentum until they either get elected (Dawson this year, Blyleven probably next year, Cepeda, Rice, etc.) or fall off of the ballot. Most of these guys eventually get in by the Vet's committee, it just takes some time.

Category D- Less argument, mostly advocates that try to blow their accomplishments up or spin them to make them look better. Baines, Staub, Morris, etc. are recent D guys. A few of them eventually get in, when the Vets committee gets ahold of some really good pot.

Edgar looks to be solidly in the C class, maybe even in the upper part. I used Morris and Murphy as D's, which isn't quite fair. By staying on the ballot and getting support for 15 years they probably qualify as something in the middle, a C- or D+.

I mentioned doing something along the lines of tiers in the reader posts. Another thing that might be fun to argue about would be grading everyone on this criteria. A few examples....

Babe Ruth A+... the plus indicates that he can reasonably be argued to be the best player of all time. My A+'s would be Ruth, Wagner, Mays and maybe a pitcher or two as of now. I'll leave Barry out as being on academic probation
Hank Aaron A... Not the best player ever, but got almost every vote
Joe Morgan A-... has been mentioned as a B, but I think that he's clearly an A. The minus might be unfair
Steve Carlton A-... nobody argued against him as a first ballot guy
Carlton Fisk B+... not an autopick, but did make it first try
Jim Rice C... C- that got some extra credit for making it in the BBWAA vote)
Gaylord Perry C+ Not considered a first ballot guy, but he made it easily once the big boys were out of the way
George Kelly D... Some of them get lucky
Gene Tenace D+... Some advocates, but no real chance unless they gang up some year and get the bong rolling around the room
Phil Garner ?... What do we do with the guys that aren't even in the D class? I don't see flunking them. A lot of them (like Garner) were nice players, that did things to make the game cool and helped their teams win. I could make something up, but I don't know why I would. Instead, lets toss this one to the floor, and you guys try to come up with an idea.

Actually, the whole thing just occured to me anyway. I'll humbly toss the whole thing out to everyone. Does any of this sound like something worth doing?
1:49 AM Jan 10th
 
mikeclaw
Kev - Manny, Thomas and Chipper should all be first-ballot guys. Helton and Walker were fine hitters whose numbers were jacked up by their home ballpark, so that's not a fair comparison.

Jollydodger - The "only if they're obvious" standard doesn't work for a lot of reasons. First off, the Hall of Fame would sometimes go five or six years with no inductees. That doesn't serve anyone. Secondly, it's just a phony standard. There are too many players, and there always will be, who are bubble guys to one person but "obvious" to another person. Unless you put one person in charge of Hall of Fame selections, there is no such thing as an "obvious" standard.
6:19 AM Jan 8th
 
OwenH
"It seems to me that, as designated hitters get no extra credit for defense, a designated hitter would have to be an historically elite offensive player to gain entrance into the Hall of Fame." You hit the nail on the head. With a 147 OPS+ over an 18-season career, I think Edgar qualifies. Man, he used to just kill the A's, but I still had to admire him.
10:53 PM Jan 7th
 
Richie
Edgar was a better 3rd baseman than Pedro. Edgar the DH did not have more defensive value than Pedro the outfielder. Probably not than Pedro the 3rd baseman, tho' that one is debatable.
10:51 PM Jan 7th
 
evanecurb
Edgar Martinez vs. Pedro Guerrero, with Stats Neutralized to an offensive context of 1982 NL with LA as home park:

Pedro: .298/.368/.476
Edgar: .301/.405/.497

Edgar's OPS+ and OWP were higher by similar margins (.712 vs. .686 and 147 vs. 137)

Edgar played 524 more games, and played thorugh age 41. Pedro retired after age 36. Edgar was a better defensive player than Pedro, (he tried real hard, though, bless his heart).

My question: If Pedro Guerrero had had the opportunity to become a DH, how many more games would he have played? If he had played 2100 games, as Edgar did, would he have produced similar numbers, at least when adjusted for era and context?

Finally, who was a better offensive player, Edgar Martinez, or his contemporary, Jim Thome?


4:57 PM Jan 7th
 
DaveFleming
Sorry the article is so brief and wandering, all....I was pressing for time (trying to beat the HOF announcement), and did more of a rush job for Edgar.

I just wanted to address JollyDodgers' statement, "if you have to debate it, then he doesn't belong." Taken to it's logical extension, doesn't that mean we wouldn't have any HOFers? I mean, the whole point IS the debate, isn't it? That's how we start to establish standards.

I get what JD is saying: he thinks the standards should be tougher. But, if the standards were tougher, there would still BE debate: if it was only Ruth and Gehrig and Musial and Mays, then we'd have to 'debate' about DiMaggio and Schmidt and Bonds.

The statement, "If you have to debate" relies on a looser standard than it advocates: it is only BECAUSE the standard for the Hall is Kiner and Evers and Schroedenist that someone like Mike Schmidt or Stan Musial requires no debate.

Does that make sense? It's a trick argument, one that is critical of a standard that it utterly relies on to make sense.

And as no one has ever landed 100% of the vote, doesn't that suggest that everyone has been 'debated'?

3:15 PM Jan 7th
 
jollydodger
If you have to debate it, then he doesn't belong. I feel the HOF should be for obvious choices only.
1:08 AM Jan 7th
 
evanecurb
Are the Martinezes the best surname team of the last 50 years? We could have brackets - the Johnsons, the Rodriguezes, the Gonzalezes, the Cruzes, Mathews/Matthews - play it off with Strat o Matic cards.
12:01 AM Jan 7th
 
evanecurb
And Edgar beats Gene Tenace in every single category, including OPS+ and OBP. So he obviously is more qualified than Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, or Andre Dawson.
10:58 PM Jan 6th
 
rgregory1956
As with the previous threads, my comment is the same. If you believe that the HOF should be "exclusive", selecting one or two a year, then no, Edgar isn't a HOFer. If you want to select 3 a year, then he's a maybe. If you think the HOF should be inclusive, then, yes, he's viable. I personally lean towards two a year, so I say no.
7:46 PM Jan 6th
 
evanecurb
I vote Yes. That guy could really really hit. Richie suggested a comparison to other guys with a similar OWP who were not known as good fielders. I am leaving out the 19th century and dead ball era guys (sorry rgregory), the guys who are not yet eligible for the Hall, and I acknowledge up front that I don’t know much about defensive ability of players except by reputation.

Ok, here goes. We’ll start with a list of non-Hall of Famers who had either a better OWP or were within 32 points of Edgar’s .712 mark:

Non-HOFers with OWP > .680


Dick Allen .741
Mark McGwire .737
Charlie Keller .732
Babe Herman .708
Norm Cash .704
Ken Williams .698
Dolph Camilli .696
Reggie Smith .693
Pedro Guerrero .685
Jeff Heath .685
Riggs Stephenson .684
John Kruk .682
Bob Johnson .681

List number one looks to me like a group of short career guys, plus Dick Allen, Mark McGwire, Reggie Smith, and Norm Cash. Reggie Smith was also known as an outstanding defensive player, so is starting to look like a good HOF candidate.
Allen and McGwire are both way ahead of Edgar in OWP (29 and 25 points, respectively) so perhaps not really comparable. I guess I’m starting to see Richie’s point – maybe Edgar is more similar to Pedro Guerrero than to Willie McCovey….


HOFers with OWP between .687 and .737 (i.e. within .25 of Edgar) Who As Far as I Know Didn’t Get Extra Points for Being Good Fielders:

Ralph Kiner .731
Chuck Klein .723
Willie McCovey .718
Willie Stargell .717
Hack Wilson .714
Harmon Killebrew .706
Bill Terry .701
Joe Medwick .700
Al Simmons .699
Paul Waner .699
Earl Averill .691
Billy Williams .688

The members of list number two are, for the most part, legitimate Hall of Famers. The only player on this list who is not also in Baseball Think Factory’s Hall of Merit is Hack Wilson. So Edgar is in pretty good company here. In terms of career length, he appears to be in the middle of these guys. Waner, Stargell, Killebrew, and Simmons had much longer careers, but Medwick, Kiner, Wilson, and Klein did not.



3:22 PM Jan 6th
 
Kev
Dave,

You are correct I think, in saying that since a DH has no defensive value, he must be a historically elite offensive player. Edgar was not, as you go on to prove:

Let's figure the standings as though the 6 HOFers and Edgar comprise a rotisserie league: Out of 21 places over your 3 categories, Edgar wins 2 (OWPct,twice) and ties with 2 other hitters in OPS+. The standings:

1. Gehrig.......21
2. Foxx.........18
3. Mize.........14
4. Greenberg....13
5. McCovey.......8
6. Stargell......6
7. Martinez......7

Dave, you claim Edgar holds his own against these guys. He doesn't.
Actually, by this method, with your categories, he and Stargell don't even belong. As for "funky", BJ considers RC/G to be the best measure of a hitter's offensive value. Would you agree that "holds his own" does not apply here?

The 3-slash list is impressive, certainly, but unless you agree that Manny, Thomas, Chipper, Helton and Walker belong in the HOF, then it is overloaded.

The logic of your position insists that to gain entrance to the HOF, you need only match Edgar's hitting stats, since you claim him to be an elite hitter holding his own with a list of HOF greats, and advancing that as sufficient to overcome his lack of value in fielding. I don't think you can make up for that lack in his body of work.

But I think the problem is the DH itself: if it's a position, it's one which can ignore part or all of a player's career.

I abhor the DH and all the imbalance and illogic it carries.

I would abolish it, and insist players play the game as intended.

If that is not to be the case, it defies common sense to have it in one league and not the other, making it impossible to evaluate players and teams properly, so, reluctantly; put it in the N.L.

I am a big fan of Edgar and consider him a standout in any definition regarding "class".

And though in opposition here,I am a faithful fan of yours, and appreciate your work very much.









The 3-slash list is imppressive, certainly, but unless you are claiming that Manny, Thomas, Chipper, Helton and Walker belong in the HOF, then the list is slightly disingenuous by their inclusion.

3:15 PM Jan 6th
 
mikeclaw
I don't know that Edgar was an awful fielder. It's my recollection that he became a DH more because of injury issues than anything else, though I could be wrong. My recollection is that he was a slightly below average, or maybe average, third baseman, and that if he needed to be moved off the hot corner he could have certainly been a passable first baseman. He wasn't some ham-handed, lead-footed clod. I think he had some injuries and it just worked out for the Mariners to put him at DH and keep him there.

I've got no problem at all with him as a Hall of Fame candidate.

11:16 AM Jan 6th
 
schoolshrink
Oh ... and Presley played in the friggin Kingdome; hardly the worst place to pad one's hitting stats.
1:11 AM Jan 6th
 
schoolshrink
Like ventboys and others, I would be thrilled for Edgar if he were in the Hall of Fame. The Mariners positively stunk for years, and Edgar was not given the chance to start regularly at third when he was clearly the superior player to Jim Presley. Fair or otherwise, he probably needed to replace Presley three years earlier and boost his stats. There is no way to know what he might have been had he played the field earlier, particularly as Presley was not exactly burning it up in the field. Hound Dog hit .247, .230, and .236 during those years where Edgar could have been playing.
1:10 AM Jan 6th
 
ventboys
Edgar did have defensive value. He played 3rd base at an average level for over 500 games, roughly 30 percent of his career. As has been mentioned, he was moved out of the field because of injuries. The M's figured that his bat was too valuable to risk playing him in the field. Molitor was moved for the same reason, and both of them were remarkably durable in their 30's after being injury prone in their 20's.

Killebrew, who you mentioned, played 791 games at third, but at a level significantly below average. Killer would have been a career DH, I would assume, as he was below average everywhere else as well.

I am an Edgar fan, so I am biased. I won't advocate him. I root for him, but I know that he's a borderline case. The DH issue, to me, isn't as germane as it appears. He was a more important (and more effective) defensive player than several Hall of Famers, and he was playing 3rd base, not first base of left field.

I like the Johnny Mize comparison. I also compare him to Hal McRae, who is not a Hall of Famer or much of a candidate. Edgar wasn't as good as Mize, but he was a good bit better than McRae. As a hitter he was similar to Willie McCovey in value (both had 147 career OPS+). Willie Mac had 1000 more plate appearances, mostly because the M's were idiots and didn't bring Edgar up for 2 years after he established that he could hit major league pitching. Willie missed some time early as well, because of the numbers game in San Fran, but Edgar also missed almost half a season due to the strike in 1994.

Edgar was .300-.400-.500, which is nice. He had a 6 year stretch, once he settled into the DH position, of over .320-.420-.550. His averages in that peak period were .333-.450-.578. He averaged 29 homers, 111 rbi, 106 runs, 42 doubles and 110 walks in 148 games. He missed some games from an injury in 1997 (in the field, he got ran over by that idiot John Marzano, which was effectively the end of ever seeing him play the field) and due to interleague play.

I still see him as borderline BBWAA. His sterling reputation as a hard, hard worker and a guy that played clean might help his cause, plus he played his entire career for one team, which I believe will also help his cause. The DH issue will be the one that is most discussed, of course. Looking at it reasonably, and giving him credit for the 550 games that he did play at third, I would look more at how he compares to the right end spectrum Hall of Famers, and call it a wash defensively.
12:26 AM Jan 6th
 
stevebogus
But Edgar did not have *no* defensive value. According to TotalZone his defense was worth about 17 runs. Not much, to be sure. But instead of getting no credit at all at least it should be admitted that he did have some defensive value before injuries took their toll.

Here's my main problem. I can understand if people believe that Edgar didn't accomplish enough to be a Hall of Fame player. It is a judgement call and Edgar is no slam-dunk HOF candidate. And I don't really think that many people really care that Edgar wasn't bad in the field. What I do not like is when feelings and baseless beliefs are presented as facts. Even the author of this article failed to check before calling Edgar a "lousy defender". If you are trying to conjure an image of a ballplayer so that you can determine his worthiness, shouldn't that image be accurate? Or is it really *only* about the batting numbers? If it is just a numbers game maybe the HOF can do what the LPGA does an have automatic entry for anyone surpassing a particular statistical threshold. Then we can take the damn vote away from sportswriters who cannot be bothered to do their homework and instead rely on their gut or sense of smell or whatever they use instead of their brains.
12:01 AM Jan 6th
 
Richie
Don't see what Edgar's having got injured has to do with anything. If he had no defensive value, he had no defensive value. If we cut players slack for injuries, we'll octuple the Hall.
10:55 PM Jan 5th
 
stevebogus
errata:

Got Edgar's fielding pct. wrong in my post. He fielded .946 at thirdbase. the league average for that time was .949, so Edgar was about 1 error per season worse than average.
9:22 PM Jan 5th
 
rtayatay
I like these articles, but I think Bill nailed the right way to consider 'greatness' in terms of peak value and career value. As in the Dale Murphy article, you don't really address the career value, which is I think is more of the issue/argument for Martinez than him being a DH. I mean, would the argument change that much if he was a 1b? I don't think it would, and I think he would still be on the fence in terms of getting in the Hall - because of his career totals, not his position.
8:10 PM Jan 5th
 
stevebogus
I don't know why people keep claiming that Edgar was a bad defensive thirdbaseman. He wasn't Jim Ray Hart or Harmon Killebrew. He was rough early in his career but he got better and ended up a career .949 fielder at the position with above average range. He moved to DH after injuries, not because he stunk in the field. That is exactly the same reason Molitor, Baines, and Hal McRae became career DHs. He spent 2 seasons (1993-1994) on and off the DL in what should have been prime seasons. If Edgar was able to stay healthy he would have remained at thirdbase.

Edgar was a premier hitter from age 27-40. 2 batting titles. An RBI title. 309 HRs. He'd be a good HOF selection, but I think he's going to be stuck in Tony Oliva land.
7:58 PM Jan 5th
 
Richie
This reasoning borders on that BillJ railed against early on in is career. Create 'clubs' which make your candidate look good.

Your only legit stat up there is OWn%. On which list Edgar is NOT close to anybody other than Stargell and McCovey. He's .50 or more behind everyone else. How about giving us a list of .662 OWn% players who were useless defensively and see how they've done in HoF voting.

Edgar is well behind the two Willies in games played.

One more beef regarding Harmon Killebrew. He played some third base into his 30s. How in the world does that equate to 'little to no' defensive value? I trust you're not suggesting Billy Martin was a dumb manager for playing him there often?

The idea that Edgar ought to be a first-ballot electee strikes me as ludicrous. Eventually? Maybe. Though I'd leave him for the Veterans' committee.

If there were no cost to having a full-time DH, then all teams would find their best-hitting candidate(s) for the position and use him/them there. Yet so many - perhaps a majority? - leave the position open, then rotate guys in over the course of the season. This ought to be addressed, before arguing for Edgar Martinez for the Hall.
7:50 PM Jan 5th
 
THBR
Damn right, good company! MANNY RAMIREZ??? CHIPPER JONES??? But you have an intriguing argument, nonetheless.
5:53 PM Jan 5th
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy