Pirates Minor League System: What's In An Ace?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 22, 2011 8:30 AM EDT
Email
PrintI already wrote about this Pirates Prospects article here, but I think it's probably worthy of further discussion. The idea of the article is that the Pirates have a bunch of potential aces in their system, which I don't think anyone really disputes. What I do take issue with, at least to a degree, is the characterization of fastball velocity as the crucial component of acehood.
There’s an old saying that goes "In order to make bricks you need clay", which means that to produce something positive you first need the right raw materials. There’s more to a great pitcher than just a blazing fastball, as an ace will have 3 to 4 plus pitches in his arsenal. However, it is much harder to be an ace WITHOUT a great fastball. Of course there are exceptions to every rule — Cliff Lee is the current one right now — but the fastball sets everything up from that point.
To make bricks, you need clay - fine. But what if you could build the house just as effectively out of wood? There are lots of top starters who throw hard, it's true. But Cliff Lee isn't really an "exception." There's Dan Haren, Jered Weaver, James Shields, and a bunch of others who've had success without top velocity. The prototype of the "ace" does exist for a reason, but in practice, a whole lot of aces don't really look like that. Fastball velocity is a great thing, but many pitchers succeed without it, and many fail despite it.
In the cases of Gerrit Cole, Jameson Taillon and Luis Heredia, who all are well-rounded pitchers in addition to having good velocity, the distinction I'm trying to make doesn't matter all that much. In Stetson Allie's case, however, I think we may risk overstating his value as a prospect by focusing on fastball velocity. Sure, Allie is a potential ace. But the field of potential aces is, I think, larger than most fans believe, since many real-life aces don't fit the prototype. The actual chance that Allie will become an ace is quite slim, and if someone would like to argue that someone like Kyle McPherson (who has good, but not outstanding, velocity, and a much clearer idea how to pitch) actually had a better chance of becoming an ace, I'd be open to that argument.
Also, the Pirates' primary goal isn't to develop aces, obviously. It's to win baseball games. There are many ways to win baseball games, some of which involve the use of a frontline starter, and some that don't. Hypothetically, if McPherson has, say, a five-percent chance of becoming an ace and a 25-percent chance of becoming a good third starter, and Allie has a six-percent chance of becoming an ace and a 15-percent chance of becoming a good third starter or a good reliever, I'll take McPherson.
This is all very nit-picky. I suppose I'm just resistant to anything that sounds like hype, and the idea that Allie is a potential ace strikes me as mostly hype right now, even if it isn't false. (This isn't to say that you shouldn't buy Pirates Prospects' sure-to-be-excellent upcoming book, which features Cole, Taillon, Heredia and Allie as actual ace playing cards on its cover.) The concept of an "ace" is more complicated than most fans think it is, and even the concept of a "pitching prospect" is pretty darn complicated. When I see a bunch of guys in the same organization lined up in this way, I can't help but think of this.
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
charlie,
why is your name kevin creagh on pirares prospect. Good article. I’d take allie and doubt mcpherson has more than a 2 or three percent chance of being an ace.
Just a mistake. I’ll fix later
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 22, 2011 10:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not a mistake -
You said you “wrote about” the article, not you “wrote” the article.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 22, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I think
We drafted him as a “thrower” that threw 100+ mph out of HS. He is learning to pitch, and he’s probably going to end up a mid-90s guy at the end of the day (no slouch by any means), if they keep him starting (probably able to hump up a little more if in the ’pen).
I do not recall anyone talking about his “advanced approach” as they did Taillon or even Heredia. We drafted him, and paid him considerable money, because of his powerful arm…and the hopes that we can harness that arm.
Until he develops some semblance of command of his arsenal…he is nothing more than a “thrower” with a great arm.
Allie
Allie does have good secondary stuff. The slider is excellent. He’s not just some velocity savant. He has mechancial and command/control problems, but the secondary stuff is every bit as promising as that of Taillon, Cole, and Heredia. Allie vs. McPherson is certainly arguable (Allie much riskier), but Allie’s chances of becoming an ace are far, far higher than those of McPherson.
Right, I know about his slider. Doesnt have much of a changeup though. Regardless, I should have written that differently.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 22, 2011 10:24 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
hmmm
My point, though, is that I think you’re underselling Allie by suggesting that he might be an ace in a way that’s more similar to the way in which McPherson might be an ace than it is to the way in which Taillon, Cole, and Heredia might be aces. Pointing out that, hypothetically, anyone could become an ace doesn’t seem like much of an argument. (Though, in fairness, pointing out that Allie, Cole, Taillon, and Heredia throw hard isn’t much of an argument either, and certainly warrants some kind of response, if you happen to have a Pirate blog.)
I’m sure you realize this, as you more or less acknowledge it in your last paragraph there. But trying to combat the “Allie is a potential ace” hype by suggesting that McPherson is a potential ace seems . . . notably bizarre. As does suggesting that “Allie is a potential ace” is hype while “Heredia is a potential ace” is plain truth.
I’m just nit-picking your nit-picking though. I do agree that the article was mostly empty hype.
Since I'm a moron with pitching mechanics, and they fascinate me anyway...
What is it about Allie’s delivery or mechanics that he needs to iron out in your opinion?
That’s not my personal opinion, actually. I’m pretty clueless about pitching mechanics, too. I just know that people seem to think his command/control is at least partially the result of inconsistent/poor mechanics. For instance, in the NYPL top 20 chat, Aaron Fitt said his mechanics “need a lot of cleaning up.”
Ah, but are houses not also
made of stone?
by bucdaddy on Oct 22, 2011 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 22, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it's "bridges," not "houses,"
but I rec’d him anyway. I knew what he meant…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 22, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
So you're saying
we should build a bridge out of Allie?
Well, I think he’s more likely to span the Allegheny than to start a major league baseball game. Make it so.
Very good article. There was a discussion over on Sickels’ site in a similar way to Grossman. The gist of that was he doesn’t profile as a corner OF because he doesn’t have the power that you’d want in a corner OF, thus he is really a 4th OF.
I think you could do the same thing with pitchers…if McPherson has an average fastball but 3 other plus pitchers, well, he can still be a damn good pitcher and possibly an ace or a very good pitcher. Just because a player doesn’t fit a particular profile doesn’t mean he can be effective in his own right.
I don’t think that’s the gist of the anti-Grossman argument. The detractors say he doesn’t have any plus (or “carrying”) tools, not just a lack of power, and that they doubt, without the tools, whether the patience will be as effective against better pitchers.
If McPherson has three plus pitches, you won’t find too many people arguing that he can’t be an ace, and you won’t find anyone arguing he can’t be effective. The question is whether he really does have that kind of stuff. I say no, but the BA writeup for him in the EL top 20 suggested his FB, CU, and CH are all potential pluses.
Sorry
I don’t think I was really being clear with what I’m trying to say. I was using Grossman and McPherson as reference points, not really referring to them and their skill-set. The way I read the argument on Sickels site was more about power than anything else. To me, the things I read about corner OF prospects, everyone seems to rate power as the most important tool, and the other tools are viewed as somewhat less important. I kind of think thats a narrow viewpoint with any prospect.
All this being said, maybe I’ve read all kinds of varying reports on Grossman and am getting mixed up here. Some things I’ve read said he’s got plus arm and speed and everything else is average…but from your comment above, it seems like everything seems to rate as average. Maybe a Brett Jackson type, but with more walks. I’m not sure.
In regards to a pitcher being an ace, I’m referring more to any pitcher rather than McPherson specifically. People seem to think of velocity as a prerequisite for a pitcher being a front-line pitcher when its not necessarily the case.
I agree that people pigeonhole guys based on stereotypes too often, but I don’t think serious prospectors do that.
About Grossman specifically, the reports are all over the map. The BA guys seem to think there are no plus tools and that the skills (patience) won’t play up in the upper levels. I mostly agree, but I do think his arm is solidly above-average, if not plus. (His foot speed is also above-average, but I agree that it’s not a true plus. I also personally am skeptical that his hit tool is even average. I’m not wild about the bat speed or the lack of contact.)
Goldstein agrees that there aren’t plus tools, but he says Grossman has no weaknesses either and seems generally more optimistic than BA. KLaw says he’s one of the most exciting guys in the AFL, looks good from a scouting perspective, and looks like what Brett Jackson is supposed to be. He also thinks he’s a no-doubt top 100 prospect. There’s no consensus, so being mixed up is probably an appropriate stance on Grossman.
That said, the argument that Callis and the BA guys are putting forward isn’t just about power. If Grossman has no plus tools, he’s only putting runs above average on the board by walking. He’d have to walk at a truly elite level to even be an average corner outfielder, in that case, which is why Callis is worried that he’s a tweener.
You seem to be mixing “average” and “replacement level” in that last paragraph. I’m not sure but MIIT seemed to be putting forth the notion elsewhere that there is a level between average and plus, meaning Grossman could be above average across the board without being plus.
Yes
definitely. 50 is average. 60 is plus. 70 is plus-plus. 55 is above-average, but not plus.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 24, 2011 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Aces
The fact that we are talking about this is a good thing. It seems like the Pirates have forever been bringing up soft tossers. Much more room for error with hard throwers, PROVIDED they can throw strikes (see: Aroldis Chapman).
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see what kind of year Jeff Karstens has. A repeat performance will cause his stock to rise and rightfully so. It would be nice to have 3 or 4 guys who throw mid-high 90s, but this team would be better trading for a bat.
But too early to tell about a few of thes guys. We can only hope.
A repeat performance will cause his stock to rise and rightfully so
Certainly. I suspect though that people are in for a disappointment on that front.
by BurgherKing on Oct 22, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I would bet that..
In three and a half years (their age difference) Stetson Allie is well beyond where Kyle McPherson is.
Just an opinion.
I think this year for him is pretty big
I’m hoping the control is better…can’t really get worse, right? Right?!?!
by NastyNate82 on Oct 22, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
that is what I'm asking myself too...
It is one thing to have control issues….4-5 bb/9.
It is another thing to walk 10 per 9. He won’t make it out of State College walking 10 per 9…not in 3.5 years, not in 10 years.
by insane_sanity on Oct 22, 2011 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
As an aside...
I’m curious what their plan is for him this coming year, and where he’ll start. West Virginia?
by NastyNate82 on Oct 23, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
i think so, control issues sure but he can work those out at the next level while challenging himself to pitch against better competition
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Thats what I'd say too..
No point in leaving him in short season leagues where he’d only pitch for 2 months again. He needs to get on the mound as much as possible.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 23, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
well
it ended up at ~25 IP because of his control issues.
he didn’t start a game after 7/28, his second straight poor start (0 IP, 1 H, 2 BB and 4 ER). He then, in his next 7 appearances…gave up NO hits, but 12 BB.
Listen, I’m a fan of the kid — world class arm. I think that perhaps I’m just more concerned about the control issues than many others are.
I look at it this way: ++ control can make a 92mph FB so much more effective, and terrible control can make a 96-100mph FB absolutely ineffective. I still love the pick and hope like hell they can harness his arm. His arm alone warranted a flier on a 2nd round pick.
by insane_sanity on Oct 23, 2011 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
wait...
I’m just trying to nut out how you get 4 ER from 1H, 2BB and 0 outs. A HBP or two? All I can come up with.
Fielder’s choice would increase outs and ROE wouldn’t increase ER.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 23, 2011 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
yup
“Double, error, walk, hit batter, hit batter and done.”
Ugh, that’s Neighborgallesque.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 24, 2011 7:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Obviously...
he had a little help from the pitcher that relieved him.
maybe he's channeling
Wild Thing?
Has Rumbunter photoshopped that up yet?
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 24, 2011 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point, 60 percent of readers think McPherson is the better prospect. Hm.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 22, 2011 12:01 PM EDT reply actions
One thing to consider is that McPherson has less time to flame out
Here’s another hypothetical: Prospect A has a 5 percent chance of becoming an ace and a 95 percent of becoming a no. 4 starter. Prospect B has a 10 percent chance of becoming an ace, a 75 percent chance of becoming a no. 4 starter, and a 15 percent chance of total flameout. Prospect C has a 5 percent chance of becoming an ace, a 20 percent chance of becoming a no. 4 starter, and a 75 percent chance of total flameout. Prospect D has a 10 percent chance of becoming an ace and a 90 percent chance of total flameout. How do you rank them, top to bottom?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 22, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I was told there'd be no math on this test, Mr. Hand...
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 22, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
ha, yeah
I’m actually just being kind of a jerk here, as explained in my reply below — this actually has nothing to do with baseball.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 22, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Why the F_ _ K is this not green?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 24, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
half the guys on here have no idea whom this is...
which im fine with. phoebe helped me reach manhood.
A, B, D, C
the 20% to become a 4th starter isn’t enough of payoff as adding 5% to get an ace (in reference to the rankings of D and C)
cool
Charlie’s bit about the possibilities of becoming an ace reminded me of the Allais paradox, so I decided to put it into action.
Orthodox decision theory says that if you prefer D to C you should also prefer B to A (unless I messed up the math). Because if you compare A to B, the tradeoff appears the same — A also has an extra 20% chance of becoming a 4th as opposed to flaming out, and 5% lower chance of becoming an ace. The reason A appears to be the most attractive is because with A you know you’ll get a useful pitcher (and have some chance of getting an ace), whereas with C, even though you have a higher chance of a useful pitcher than with D, there’s still a big chance C will flame out.
I personally agree with you and think orthodox decision theory is mistaken here — in this case it makes sense to be risk-averse and value the sure thing, but if you can’t get the sure thing, you may want to go for the higher upside.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 22, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't agree at all
You win championships with aces not a bunch of #4s and aces are far more difficult to come by. If all that is holding us back from becoming a contender is a solid #4 any semi-competent GM can come up with one of those, but if you need an ace good luck with that unless you have a lot of money to spend.
Should be B,A,D,C
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 22, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Just ask the Phillies that
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
They did win a title in '08 though.
Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.
by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 23, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Not with the rotation they have now though
Their rotation in 2008 and ERA+:
Cole Hamels 142 (legit ace)
Jamie Moyer 118 (pretty good)
Brett Myers 97
Kyle Kenricks 80
Joe Blanton 76
Hardly a rotation of aces.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
You can win with anything...
Look at the shitshow of pitching in the NLCS. You can win with a great pitching staff (2005 Pale Hose) or a monster offense (2004 Red Sox).
by NastyNate82 on Oct 23, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
What I mean by you can win with anything is that
there is no tried-and-true, guaranteed-to-win-a-title formula to follow. Having 4 pitchers like the Phils have would give a team a tremendous advantage in a short series, but it won’t necessarily mean you’ll win of course.
That Phils staff from 2008 was kind of a mish-mash unit. Not terrible, but not typical from a WS winner either.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 23, 2011 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
You CAN win a World Series with a bunch of number 4’s. Would I recommend it? No, but aces aren’t the only way to do it
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
Just out of curiosity
What team has ever won the WS with a bunch of #4s or do just mean that a team, in theory, could even though it has never actually happened?
by WestCoastBuc on Oct 23, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I strongly suspect you couldn't
Real #4s are ~89 ERA+ guys, and they throw a lot fewer innings that 1-2-3 types.
You probably could do it with 5 #3s – what you give up at the high end you gain from not giving 30 starts to No Relation or Brian Burres.
Just in theory
I think eventually we’re gonna see it done. You play 120+ baseball seasons, everything is bound to eventually happen
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
Takes a bunch of bats though...
something the Pirates don’t show any indication of acquiring anytime soon.
Hard to acquire a bat
When they refuse to come here. It’s a two way street Thunder.
Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.
by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 24, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
That is a near-perfect average rotation
Cole was better than a typical #1, and Kendricks was noticeably worse than a typical #4 (which is actually funny given how it came up), but this is about what you’d get if you assembled a rotation out of league-average 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 SPs.
I voted Allie
as the question asks who the better “prospect” is rather than who the better “pitcher” or “potential ace”. Hell if Allie learns fastball control and develops his slider ( i think thats his number 2 pitch) and becomes a reliever than I have no problem with that. He could become our future closer when we do have guys like Cole, Taillon and Heredia starting games.
I generally agree with the article though
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
His bat is intriguing as well
But that’s definitely a plan B and long shot should (God forbid) his arm bust. But to me, this is a classic question of how to value prospects. Ceiling or floor?
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
if he becomes our closer
and McPherson becomes a #4 starter, McPherson’s likely to be more valuable.
by BurgherKing on Oct 22, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, but
You don’t get to choose just the good Hammer years – you also get the ones he had in DC. It’s extremely rare for a closer – even an elite one – to put together 6 straight ~2 WAR seasons. Setting aside that Maholm’s not a #4, he’s a guy who’s given an average of 2.25 WAR/year, with a floor of 1.4 (in his first full season). Very, very few closers can match that.
A top notch closer probably is worth more than a league-average #4, however.
Allie
I have him ranked one higher than McPherson. The lack of success from the Altoona 4 plays a part here. I was easily higher on Owens last year than I am on McPherson this year.
Hypothetically, if McPherson has, say, a five-percent chance of becoming an ace and a 25-percent chance of becoming a good third starter, and Allie has a six-percent chance of becoming an ace and a 15-percent chance of becoming a good third starter or a good reliever, I’ll take McPherson.
by ATribeCalledGreg on Oct 22, 2011 1:16 PM EDT reply actions
I think McPherson’s a better prospect at the moment, but only because Allie’s control this year was so, so, so, so terrible. If Allie is “only” walking, say, five per nine innings, and teaming that with an 11-12 K/9, he’s arguably got more upside as a tremendous reliever than McPherson does as a decent starter.
No jinx no jinx no jinx.
agreed. i hadn’t heard that theory specifically, but i realized that’s where you were going with it. but when i think of this situation in money value, it gets a little more complicated. how much more value is an ace vs. a #4 starter.
in this scenario, i take the 10% chance:
5% chance i get $1000, 20% chance i get $10, 75% i get $0
10% i get $1000, 90% i get $0
but what about this scenario:
5% chance i get $1000, 20% chance i get $100, 75% i get $0
10% i get $1000, 0% i get $0
that’s a little less certain. maybe i undervalued a #4 starter in your hypothetical. i think a #4 starter would be closer to the 1000/100 relation than the 1000/10 relation.
We can attach values
One win (that is, WAR, win above replacement) is worth ~$5M – that’s what it costs to buy one on the open market. Depending how you want to define “ace”, you’re looking at between 5 and 8 WAR/year. A #4 is closer to 1 WAR/year. Assuming that you don’t think Allie or McPherson is going to be Roy Halladay, let’s call it $25M of value per year from an ace and $5M of value per year from a #4 (and $10M of value per year from a top notch closer).
The trouble, of course, is that you can quantify the outcomes with some precision, but any attempt to quantify likelihoods is guesswork. If you think McPherson’s odds of becoming a 5 WAR pitcher are 2%, but they’re “really” 1%, you’ve inadvertently added $250k to his side of the ledger. That’s not to say that you don’t do it, of course; it’s just that it’s a misleading level of precision.
and now for something completely different
Robbie Grossman so far today
Walk sb run scored
Walk rbi run scored
Sac fly rbi
Single rbi run scored
1 for 1 2 rbis 3 run scored sac fly sb
And its only the 6th inning
by BadAndy on Oct 22, 2011 5:39 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I see what you did there...
.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 22, 2011 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
It's...
Pittsburgh Sports: Creating sports history and legends since 1887.
by Bradley James McEachern on Oct 23, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
question
does anyone know what Brooks Pounders tops out at with the radar gun? I think he is a real sleeper with great control. Thanks.
Pounders
Is one of my Favorite Prospects for some reason, maybe his name? As a starter he tops out 88-90. But he was a Reliever for west virgina last year and was around 90-92. I was kinda dissapointed he turned into a reliever but his control is good and he can mix pitches, he is only 21 and should be at bradenton next year.
age of last winning season: 5
WTM's profile over at Pirates Prospects
has him at 90-92 with good command of four pitches but a high-effort delivery. He’s been used mostly in relief. . .and I see Bobby Hill just beat me to it. As they say, read the whole thing.
Lino Donoso
I think pin-point control is by far the most important tool a pitcher needs to become an ace
there are plenty of examples of guys who could throw hard but really don’t know where the ball’s going. I’ll take guys like Greg Maddux and Cliff Lee who have expert command of their pitches but may not really throw that hard.
I think this nails it
Obviously the trouble with pinpoint control + mediocre stuff is that, when your control’s off you get hammered. But Chapman illustrates the flipside.
The bottom line is that really good control is easily worth a few MPH, and we shouldn’t treat it as a learned skill any more than we do speed.
It is interesting to me...
… that so many people deride the Pirates of the past for making “safe” picks, yet think McPherson is a better prospect. The Pirates need upside. They need stars. I haven’t seen enough of McPherson to convince me that he’s a lead-pipe lock to be a 3-WAR starter. Maybe if he was I’d change my mind. But the Pirates are going for broke in their draft strategy and I don’t think it’s time to give up on that yet.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
