http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/ bringing data to Red Sox coverage since 2008 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:59:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Around the web | alexking.org Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:44:52 +0000 http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/#comment-536 [...] Why I Still Believe In Buchholz (No, It’s Not a Mancrush) - wicked clevah [...] [...] Why I Still Believe In Buchholz (No, It’s Not a Mancrush) – wicked clevah [...]

]]> http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/comment-page-1/#comment-535 sog Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:50:10 +0000 http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/#comment-535 @ahl: thank you sir. you were right; the second was indeed supposed to be BB/9: fixed. @ahl: thank you sir. you were right; the second was indeed supposed to be BB/9: fixed.

]]> http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/comment-page-1/#comment-534 ahl Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:25:48 +0000 http://wickedclevah.com/2008/12/24/why-i-still-believe-in-buchholz-no-its-not-a-mancrush/#comment-534 Great post. I think you may have put K/9 twice when perhaps one of those was supposed to be BB/9 or something. Great post. I think you may have put K/9 twice when perhaps one of those was supposed to be BB/9 or something.

]]>