Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

100 mph...

Tiny by Karma Police on Comment 156 comments

Does anyone else think it's kinda funny how the variation of speeds of pitchers seems to be a 100mph maximum (with a few obvious exceptions)?

Was that just a coincidence, or were the baseball diamond dimensions specifically built so the fastest anyone could throw was around 100? It just seems kinda weird that people would stop getting faster right around a nice round number.

 

Which also gets me thinking about why a normal pitch count, or even a set pitch count is usually 100. Again, was that planned at all?

1 recs  |  Comment 156 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Baseball was made up by Adrian Monk.

Also, 67.38 was taken =(.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Jan 18, 2009 9:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I can't decide whether to take any of this seriously or not

I’m going with “not”, though.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I guess the real question is, though,

if the home team notices that the opposing pitcher is nearing the 100mph mark in the 1st inning, can it either move the mound back to 84 feet 3 inches, or redefine home plate to be the spot where the ballgirl sits in left field?

OH YEAH WELL SHOW ME IN THE RULEBOOK WHERE THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO!

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

What's that you say?

Pitchers just happen to be throwing that hard at the moment. I remember in the late 80s when a guy who came out of the bullpen and threw 90-93 was a real fireballer. Aside from Nolan Ryan, there weren’t many guys that we would still consider power pitchers. You were lucky if one guy on your club could break 96.

Nowadays, every team has a couple relievers throwing 97-100 and starters are routinely living above 95. There are two possible explanations, either speed guns were all calibrated wrong, in which case Nolan Ryan was probably throwing 115, or guys just didn’t throw as hard. I’m going with the latter.

15 years from now, the power closers will probably be throwing 105+ and people will wonder why 97 used to seem so fast.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2009 9:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yeah but

I’ve also read that ~104 is the theoretical “maximum” given the stress-handling abilities of the human shoulder.

If that’s true the whole “THE MAXIMUM IS SORT OF A ROUND NUMBER” thing is somewhat valid to talk about

by Simon Phoenix on Jan 18, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Even if the maximum is sort of a round number

that doesn’t imply that the dimensions of a baseball diamond were built to accommodate it.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not really.

Even if there was any compelling reason to believe that 104 mph was the maximum a human could throw, that isn’t a very round number. There’s also no compelling reason to believe that 104 mph is the speed limit. Not unless you think that Joel Zumaya is the pinnacle of human evolution.

The commonly held belief (backed by an understanding of basic physics) is that your height and arm length increase velocity. By having long arms, you are launching the ball from a bigger lever, so the force you apply is essentially multiplied by the distance from your shoulder.

If you have a really long arm, you can throw harder than if you had a really short arm, without placing any additional stress on your shoulder. That alone makes it completely impossible to have a limit on how fast a person can throw. Besides, when you see a 5’10" guy throwing as hard as any other starter in baseball, you gotta wonder how hard he’d be throwing if he were 8 inches taller.

And even if all of that wasn’t the case, if there was a demonstrable speed limit that actually was a round number and no one could throw any harder than that, it still wouldn’t mean anything. When the dimensions of a baseball field were developed, there wasn’t even any way to measure ball speed, let alone perform the medical tests and incredibly complex physics equations required to determine what the maximum velocity would be.

It would just be a coincidence. But since there isn’t any evidence of a speed limit, or any reason to believe that it would be a round number, there isn’t even a coincidence. Just a common human tendency to see patterns in random data.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I over-simplified, but it's mass that adds stress, not length

Angular momentum and total work in the system are unchanged by alterations in length, only mass. An increase in length directly increases the torque, adding release energy without putting additional stress on the arm. The argument is predicated on the assumption that people can have sufficiently different body types that one has arms thinner and longer, but with equal mass.

At that point, the argument becomes whether a thinner longer arm is able to be as strong / withstand as much torsion as a thicker arm. I’m not a kinesthesiologist so I really don’t know how that shakes out, but I would be surprised if the loss of a little bit of girth would seriously weaken the structure of an arm.

If two people have arms of the same mass but different lengths, the additional stress through the shoulder is extremely negligible*. Stress on the arm is greater due to the increase in centripetal force, but not so much that it would put the arm under more stress than the shoulder.

*Moment of inertia increases with length, but that just makes it more difficult to accelerate your arm, it doesn’t have any effect on the forces at play once you have accelerated it. This creates the argument that perhaps there is a point at which the increased energy needed to accelerate the arm becomes so great that it outweighs the increase in potential angular momentum. i.e. there isn’t sufficient time (given the relatively short length of a pitchers delivery) to fully accelerate your arm.

I’m not claiming that I have some crazy computer model to prove that there isn’t a maximum speed, I’m saying that there’s no reason to believe that there is a demonstrable maximum speed (specifically, one that would be imposed by a structural weakness in the shoulder).

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2009 10:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also, I'm not sure what role centripetal force plays on the shoulder

My whole point is based on the assumption that torsional stresses are the primary force at play damaging a pitcher’s shoulder. Such that the stress is caused by the transfer of force, by the muscles, through the shoulder to accelerate and control the arm.

I’m not an expert on pitching mechanics, so it’s certainly possible that the primary stress is in fact centripetal, in which case the force on the shoulder would increase due to both the increased length and the increased angular velocity. If that is the case, then yes I am wrong about not adding any stress, but it still wouldn’t add so much that going from 104-105 would be impossible.

I guess my confusion stems from the statement that this is a limit on attainable speed. If it becomes a debate about whether the centripetal force will become too damaging, then that wouldn’t affect the ability of a person to throw that fast, it would just wreck their arms. Two people with arms of equal mass, but different mass, could apply the same amount of force and throw at different velocities.

Maybe the long arm, harder throwing guy’s shoulder would give out first, but that isn’t really a speed limit. Though given that most pitchers wreck their arms anyways, I still don’t think it’s particularly compelling evidence.

by Vatinius on Jan 18, 2009 11:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What?

Double the lever arm and you double the force couple, increasing stress in whichever ligaments are carrying the forces. In addition, the deceleration at the end of the pitching motion becomes much, much harder.

But what would I know. It’s not like I have a masters in structural biomechanics*.

*Oh wait I do.

by Graham on Jan 18, 2009 11:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So which is the primary force causing damage?

This is the part that I’m not clear on. It sounds like you’re saying that the primary limiting factor in pitch velocity is the capacity of the tissues in the shoulder to withstand centripetal force. My background is in physics not biomechanics, so I’ll take your word for it, I’d just like a little better explanation.

I assumed that the tension in the muscles from accelerating the arm would act against centripetal force. Does this not happen, or are the muscles involved simply too weak to counter the outward force? And how significant is the torsional stress from total work applied compared to the centripetal force?

Also, are you arguing in favor of the speed limit or just pointing out that I don’t know the inner workings of the shoulder? Because even if the stresses on various bits of shoulder structure increase by a significant amount, the increased length still acts as a force multiplier, and increases the velocity of your hand.

I can’t see how the increase in rotational stress could be dramatic enough impose a maximum velocity.

by Vatinius on Jan 19, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Essentially, looking at biomechanical systems as pure force problems doesn't make sense

It’s not the physics that’s wrong, it’s the framework.

There is a speed limit somewhere in the windup/release of the baseball based on the ability of the human body to store and release potential energy without any failure of the soft tissue (or I guess you could bend/shear the bones too), but treating the arm like a lever out of the shoulder doesn’t make a whole bunch of sense – it’s way too simplistic.

In essence, the more impulse the hand transmits on the ball, the more stressed the arm will be, no matter how long or short that it is. The real advantage height has is in gravitational potential energy and a release point closer to the batter.

by Graham on Jan 19, 2009 5:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Stupid question

Do most the pitching muscles get torn under acceleration or deceleration of the pitching motion?

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know, but I'd guess deceleration is where most rupture occurs.

It’s not really the muscles you ought to worry about though, it’s the ligaments and tendons.

by Graham on Jan 19, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But what would I know. It’s not like I have a masters in structural biomechanics*.

*Oh wait I do.

I’m calling bullshit

by seattlebruin on Jan 19, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just like it used to be physically impossible to break a 4 minute mile, right?

There are no barriers. See: Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Roger Bannister

by Smegmalicious on Jan 20, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just wait until Bolt runs a 9.4s 100m

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 21, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No it's not

you’re stoned

by Jeff on Jan 18, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've been clean for a month

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 18, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm looking for employment

My best (ie highest paying) skill at the moment is shuttle driver. These positions usually require drug tests

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Really?

Requiring drug tests of employees or potential employees is illegal in Canada.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 19, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's all the rage here

Every job I’ve had in the last 10 years has required a drug screen as a condition of employment.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 19, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's just a good way to weed out internship candidates

I’d estimate at least 25% of all college students would fail a drug test if asked to take one

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thing is I think most the drug tests are looking for the hard stuff

coke, heroin, etc. They seem to be extremely lax on weed. I don’t have any great reason to think this but many of my friends who have been tested should have failed but somehow passed. Anybody know anything about this? Anybody in HR shine some light on this one?

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Most hard stuff clears out of the body in under 48 hrs.

Weed is easy to test for because it bonds to fat. Therefore it stays in the body for a long time.

by Sec 108 on Jan 19, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I'm about to take a flight tomorrow

and the pilot better not be drunk/stoned/high.

I’ve got to say I think drug testing for jobs is totally fine. Working with kids who are stoned definitely shows that it impacts productivity. 99% of the time a drug test is useless but for an employer the price is small so they might as well have people do it.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Applying for a job is totally voluntary

They could violate your privacy much worse if they wanted to. Plus since doing drugs is against the law I think its pretty reasonable that drug tests are fairly common. I agree that a thorough interview would be much more useful.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2009 10:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

-


Applying for a job is totally voluntary

Yes, because it’s easy to get by with no source of income.

They could violate your privacy much worse if they wanted to.

Doesn’t mean it’s ethical.

by JI on Jan 19, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

When you enter into an agreement with an employer

Said employer needs to be able to depend on you to be at your productive maximum. They have every right to check to see if you’re intoxicated on the job because you are then violating that trust. On the flipside you get things like workers comp and workman’s laws that ensure you are working in a fair workplace. They have every right to make sure that their employee is treating them fairly by not being intoxicated.

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I got disqualified for a job once because I tested positive for opiates

after eating a two-pack of poppy seed muffins for breakfast. Drug tests are ridiculous.

by Vatinius on Jan 19, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm pretty sure it is

If you don’t get high ever then you won’t show up to work high. If you do sometimes then there is a chance you will show up to work.

Its not great and most people are responsible enough but many jobs can’t take that chance.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2009 7:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yup.

And because of the availability of masking agents and the fact that most hard drugs are out of your system in a hurry, most people that get popped for drug tests are people who took a hit at a party a week and a half before the interview. They don’t work and they’re a huge violation of privacy.

by acblue on Jan 20, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm occasionally intoxicated on the job.

Doesn’t cause any problems.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 20, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Does it hurt your performance

If so, I bet your employer has a problem with it.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have a very easy job.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 20, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Um, excuse me?

I sure as hell you got a warning for this.

Big Z is the MAN.

by Taylor H on Jan 20, 2009 6:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

.

Ridgefield is a town in Fairfield County, Connecticut, United States.
—
As of the census3 of 2000…the racial makeup of the town was 96.12% White, 0.62% Black or African American, 0.09% Native American, 2.08% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.36% from other races, and 0.70% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.97% of the population.

by acblue on Jan 20, 2009 11:30 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Sorry.

Next time I make a comment about anything, I’ll make sure that no one’s ever said it before.

Big Z is the MAN.

by Taylor H on Jan 20, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've worked with my stoner friends before

and its hard to be productive when under the influence.

Would you rather the employer just guess who is doing drugs? Seems to me a quantitative test is better than leaving hiring practices open to discrimination.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 19, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No one is saying people should be able to show up to work high.

What I do on my own time is my own damned business and if it doesn’t effect my performance at work it is of no concern to my employer.

by acblue on Jan 20, 2009 12:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If you are doing meth at home

its probably gonna affect your performance at work. Back where I grew up I think meth is probably the #1 concern of employers.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

News flash

Nobody owes you anything.

by Gomez on Jan 19, 2009 11:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just because you need an income to get by

doesn’t mean that anyone should have to change their rules to allow you to have one.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 20, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Doing drugs is against the law?

That’s weird. I know selling and buying drugs is against the law, and possessing them is against the law. But doing them?

That’s a strange restriction. You folks have an odd country.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 20, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Strangely enough

I have only had to take one drug test in the last 6 years, and as a temp I’ve had a wide range of jobs.

by Gomez on Jan 19, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait how does that work with MLB?

Are Toronto Blue Jays exempt from drug testing?

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know. I suspect they're allowed because the players agreed to it in the CBA.

I know that Canadian employers aren’t permitted to ask for drug tests from their employees. I don’t know how (or if) MLB gets around that.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 20, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The players wanted them

They came around to see it as the lesser of two evils.

by JI on Jan 20, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It should be pointed out that this is the only reason America won't switch to that French metric system

100 mph is a sexier number than 162 km/h so baseball can’t go metric
Baseball is Americas game
America won’t switch

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 18, 2009 9:30 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

no politics.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How is that politics?

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 18, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

asserting the superiority of one political entry over another = politics

and I was trying to head off the discussion before it started.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

by entry I meant entity.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 18, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Moyer used metric system

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 19, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oooh la la! The best!

That and the paper bag puppets on the airplane for Joey Cora, 3rd place is Joey Cora crying in the dugout and A-Rod hugs him. I’m surprised that hasn’t been gif’d.

Formerly dpseadvr.

by Kermit. on Jan 19, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

162 km/h...

which gets me thinking about how there are 162 games in a season. Was this planned at all?

by Nick S on Jan 19, 2009 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Oh shit

It is a conspiracy

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Jan 19, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why doesn't Joe Morgan ever hail the 103 rbi guy?

I think 100 is often selected as a pitch count because it is a “round” number, much like 100 rbi is an often mentioned milestone.

The U.S is somewhat metric: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/

by two_hands on Jan 18, 2009 9:49 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Am I missing something?

Verlander and a couple others have hit 101-102 on the gun, don’t they?

by Gomez on Jan 18, 2009 10:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Gun times are (largely) bogus

There’s a roughly 10mph difference between the out-of-hand speed and the across-the-plate speed, thanks to air resistance slowing the ball during flight. So depending on where you make your measurement, you can get a wide variety of results for the same exact pitch. This is also why I don’t like the term “fast gun” and “slow gun” because the instrument taking the reading is likely calibrated properly 99% or more of the time, it’s just that there seems to be no consistent standard for where they should measure the pitch speed.

Fangraphs had Verlander at 95.5mph on his average FB three years ago (just 93.6mph this year, though), so I’m sure that his out-of-hand velocity was over 100mph on more than one FB back in 2005. If you take the average speed of the ball from his hand to the catcher’s mitt, my guess is that he’s never as high as 100mph.

Fangraphs has Zumaya at 98.6mph in 2006, so it seems plausible that he could have dialed it up for a few pitches at 100mph. There are probably a handful of other pitchers that do this from time-to-time.

by ubelmann on Jan 18, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thats because

there is no consistent standard release point from pitcher to pitcher or in some cases from pitch to pitch. The only consistent place to measure from would be the front of home plate and nothing would be less sexy then dropping everyone’s pitching speed down 10 mph

Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles

by Trenchtown on Jan 19, 2009 4:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No

I guess I could have been slightly more explicit and instead said “it seems plausible that [Zumaya] could have dialed it up for a few pitches at or above 100mph.”

Radar gun data doesn’t really help the discussion, though, since it’s so inaccurate and pitch f/x exists. Someone with better database skills than I have can probably go through last season’s data and find a handful of pitches that topped 100mph.

by ubelmann on Jan 20, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

this

is probably the most insane thing I have ever read

by sharks on Jan 19, 2009 3:20 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

This is a very interesting observation

except that if home plate was 10 feet or 100 yards away from the mound it would not affect how hard pitchers throw. And pitch counts are not usually set at 100. Actually, I’m not sure this post has any grounding in reality or logical thought process.

Rec’d.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 19, 2009 7:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Haha, I forgot I posted this

And no, marijuana was not involved. But a large amount of very bad beer played a part.

by Karma Police on Jan 19, 2009 3:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Max_small
FootbaLL IV (Nov 21st)

by JamMasterJesus 3 days ago

43 comments | 5 recs

Small
The Sabermetrics of Cats

by ARock 8 days ago

148 comments | 9 recs

Recent FanPosts

Small
WAR gains major exposure

by Fett42 about 5 hours ago

5 comments | 0 recs

Laughing_man_elmex_small
AFL Championship game thread

by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth 1 day ago

40 comments | 0 recs

Smell-the-glove_small
OFFTOP 11/19 - The Hand of Fraud

by pdb 3 days ago

497 comments | 0 recs

Small
Tony Blengino interview on 710 AM ESPN Seattle's Hot Stove League

by ARock 3 days ago

15 comments | 0 recs

Ichirocameron_small
OTFPOTD 11/16: Recipes Edition

by Decatur 6 days ago

1082 comments | 0 recs

Small
Lookout Landing as a communtiy

by JetersNeverProsper 7 days ago

370 comments | 0 recs

Small
Royals determined to unload Callaspo...

by slamcactus 9 days ago

31 comments | 0 recs

Ichiro_small
Ackley and Triunfel on MLB TV right now

by Smegmalicious 14 days ago

102 comments | 0 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Photo link

Diamondbacks Acquire Pitcher Aaron Heilman

AZ Snakepit

San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum throws to the Arizona Diamondbacks during the first inning of a baseball game, Saturday, April 18, 2009, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/George Nikitin) +2 updates

Tim Lincecum Edges Carpenter, Wainwright To Win Second Straight NL Cy Young

Photo

Mike Scioscia, Jim Tracy Named Managers Of The Year

More from SBNation.com >

Sexy People

1_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff