Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Eddie Cicotte

What a pitcher! What a maroon!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 10:27 PM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 10:33 PM (#1036773)
hot topics
   2. karlmagnus Posted: December 22, 2004 at 10:59 PM (#1036851)
Best knuckleballer in baseball. Best Curser in baseball! Unluckiest non-dying player in MLB history!
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 11:01 PM (#1036856)
Unluckiest non-dying player in MLB history!

You gave me a good laugh with that one, karlmagnus. :-)
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2004 at 11:02 PM (#1036862)
Best knuckleballer in baseball...

...not named Phil Neikro or Hoyt Wilhelm.
   5. karlmagnus Posted: December 23, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#1037027)
Cicotte's ERA+ was 123 compared with 115 for Niekro. Wilhelm's was 149 -- presumably inflated by his having been a reliever -- even so, I hadn't realized he was quite that good. So OK, Cicotte's the #2 knuckleballer in baseball history, beating Hough, Candiotti, Wakefield etc. by a considerable margin. I suspect the HOF has never really looked at his qualifications; ex the scandal, he'd clearly be in there, even if he'd tailed off quickly.
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 12:35 AM (#1037081)
Cicotte's ERA+ was 123 compared with 115 for Niekro.

...and Niekro pitched a gazillion innings more. Niekro wins.

I suspect the HOF has never really looked at his qualifications; ex the scandal, he'd clearly be in there, even if he'd tailed off quickly.

A couple more good seasons would have cliched it. Since knuckleballers are usually more durable than other types of pitchers (I'm guessing, so I could be wrong about that), I'm confident that Cicotte would have made it IF he hadn't made that stupid mistake of his in 1919.
   7. jimd Posted: December 23, 2004 at 03:37 AM (#1037360)
he hadn't made that stupid mistake of his in 1919

If there was a HOM around then, he might have thought about his "legacy" just a bit. A little more discussion of the early history might have increased all players awareness of the Louisville scandal and the punishments imposed. (optimist)

Then again, there was money to be made, so maybe not. (cynic)
   8. karlmagnus Posted: December 23, 2004 at 03:41 AM (#1037362)
Cicotte was artificially prevented from pitching a gazillion more innings. A better knuckler than Niekro, who would have pitched as many innings had he been allowed to do so. When banned, Cicotte was getting better year by year.
   9. Kelly in SD Posted: December 23, 2004 at 10:14 AM (#1037834)
artificially prevented = took money to throw the World Series and admit doing so publicly when just the previous offseason (1918-1919) Hal Chase was suspended for "laying down" on the field and faced permanent expulsion from baseball for doing so.

Getting better year by year?
His ERA+ from 1917-1920: 174, 99, 175, 115.
Win Shares (Adjusted for WWI): 35, 17, 35, 24
DERA: 3.07, 4.28, 2.96, 3.89.
DERA - adjusted for all-time: 3.20, 4.65, 3.09, 4.07
WARP1: 13.1, 5.3, 11.3, 6.7
WARP3: 12.5, 4.4, 11.5, 6.1

He may or may not have been in decline at age 36, but he wasn't getting better.
   10. Howie Menckel Posted: December 23, 2004 at 03:01 PM (#1037876)
If it's ERA+ you like and not career totals, feel free to cut Niekro off at age 40. He'd STILL have more career IP than Cicotte, and the absence of a long decline phase would make him look a lot better, too.

Cicotte is without a decline phase because he helped fix games. I don't have a problem with someone voting him HOM anyway, but at least let's not make the fixing a 'bonus' by not addressing this point in comparisons.
   11. karlmagnus Posted: December 23, 2004 at 03:04 PM (#1037877)
His 1917-20 were considerably better than his 1912-16, and his WS figure for 1920 is distorted by the fact that he missed about the last month of the season. Clearly knuckleballers like other pitchers do decline eventually, and Cicotte himself is known to have been worried about his approaching career end when he threw the 1919 WS, but the evidence is that he was still in the late-blooming period typical of a knuckleballer, and hadn't begun to enter the decline phase. But we shall never know.
   12. andrew siegel Posted: December 23, 2004 at 05:15 PM (#1038021)
I'm not one to dock Jackson, Cicotte, and company much if anything for throwing the series, but damn if I'm going to give them extra credit for what they might have done if they hadn't been banned. Taking Cicotte on his numbers in the close-but-no-cigar category with the likes of Mays, Shocker, Cooper, and Vaughn. (I've got him behind Cooper and ahead of the other three--somewhere around 35th or 40th.)
   13. ronw Posted: December 23, 2004 at 06:39 PM (#1038197)
Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought that Cicotte's knuckler was good, but not great, and certainly not his "out" pitch.

I always thought Cicotte's paraffin (shiner, foreign substance) ball made him great. During and after 1920, he wouldn't have been allowed to use it, since there was no grandfathering of paraffin balls. Any chance that partially caused his 1920 production drop?
   14. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: December 23, 2004 at 08:58 PM (#1038665)
I know nothing about Cicotte, but I do like David Strathairn, the actor who played him in Eight Men Out.

Strathairn's not a HOF'er, but he's one of those guys who helps win ballgames, so to speak.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 09:06 PM (#1038685)
I know nothing about Cicotte, but I do like David Strathairn, the actor who played him in Eight Men Out.

He was also good in A League of Their Own.
   16. jonesy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 11:16 PM (#1038829)
Cicotte is a guy I have quite a bit on. I was contemplating making an attempt on a biography about him but have since turned my attention in another direction.

He had an early reputation as a guy who did not always keep himself in shape. While with the Red Sox his stamina was often questioned as he never paid much attention to keeping his legs in condition (Sporting Life, 2-3-1912). He was also suspended in 1911 for not running out ground balls (Sporting Life, 6-17-1911). He credited his elevation to top pitcher after ten years of so-so results to giving up beer drinking and finally staying in better shape year round (TSN, 10/25/1917).

Interestingly enough there are numerous articles floating around that provides excellent descriptions of his pitching style; more so I believe that a lot of other -- his contemporary --pitchers. I will excerpt a few.
   17. jonesy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 11:36 PM (#1038855)
This is Billy Evans talking in 1921.

"It was Cicotte who discovered that application of talcum powder to the ball, plus a couple of rubs on the uniform, caused a spot on the ball that was far smoother than any other portion of the ball. This enabled the pitcher to let the ball go off the finger or thumb without resistance, which enabled him to get a deceptive break on the ball. Cicotte used to have the talcum in a small linen sack. He would simply dust it on the ball."

"The black and white ball was also a creation of Cicotte's brain. He simply followed a long established theory, that any black and white object, made to revolve through the air was confusing to the eye. Cicotte, when umpires were tolerant as to the discoloration of the ball, would take a new ball, give it a twist or two in his glove, especially prepared for the occasion, and, in a twinkling, half of the ball would be darkened..."

"Cicotte perfected the stunt of leading the seams. In a way, he applied the theory of the loaded bowling ball to a baseball. He forced oil or paraffine between the seams, and then into it he rubbed a lot of dirt, which was taken up by patting the glove on a dusty portion of the pitching (mound). With this seam so loaded, Cicotte pitched game after game, in which he used only a fast ball. That will give you some idea of the break he was able to get on the ball through loading the seams."


There is a lot of conflicting data about what Cicotte actually threw most often, a knuckler or shine ball. Not everyone agreed with Evans. Ty Cobb felt that Cicotte used the knuckler as his main pitch -- some estimates as 75% of his pitches -- and the paraffin/shine ball was a bluff action on Eddie's part, much like Gaylord Perry's various gyrations that were often more hype than substance. Anything to keep the batters quessing.

More to come.
   18. jonesy Posted: December 23, 2004 at 11:49 PM (#1038871)
"Whether Cicotte does or doesn't use artificial means to get the break on the so-called shine ball the fact remains he is about the headiest pitcher in the game...

'Keep the batsman guessing,' is on of the tenets of Cicotte's pitching creed.

"The big thing with Cicotte is to fool the batter and he has made it a life study. That is why he still clings to his shine ball. Whether the leather is doctored to make it take a particular hop on its journey to the plate is still under dispute, but Cicotte has practically every batter of renown in the A.L. believing that he has an uncanny delivery and that is just what he wants them to think..."

"Cicotte did rub the ball on his uniform and brought the sphere up to his mouth. This might have been for effect, but the fact remains that aside from his attempts to fool the batsman..."
   19. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 12:00 AM (#1038890)
"Everybody knows that Cicotte for several years has kept in baseball by using some sort of a trick delivery -- everybody but Eddie himself, who won't admit it. The balls he has pitched have been submitted to President Ban Johnson, who couldn't see anything illegal in their doctoring. They have been passed around among players, scribes and fans. All agreed they have been doctored. But Eddie Cicotte won't admit it."

"He talks freely of how he pitches -- up to the admission that there is such a thing as a 'shine ball.' There he stops and denies or rather stands on his rights as innocent until proven guilty and asks them to prove it. He even was willing to diagram his knuckle ball and his variety of drops -- but 'shine ball?"

"I don't do anything to the ball that anybody can discover,' he said. 'The umpires have taken enough balls out of games I have pitched to put ball bearings under a court house, but Ban Johnson never has found any of them tampered with. Of course when a ball breaks so a batter can't hit it he naturally will squawk to the umpire..."
   20. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 12:05 AM (#1038902)
This is from 1908.

"Veteran Jim McGuire believes that E. Cicotte, the Boston Americans' pitcher, showed what will prove the latest wrinkle in freak curves today, when he uncovered the 'knuckle curve.' It is pitched with the fingers doubled and the thumb grasping the ball. The new curve breaks fast after floating to the plate in lazy fashion. Cicotte has been practicing it for two years, and, with assistance from McGuire, believes he has mastered it."
   21. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 12:12 AM (#1038924)
"What Cicotte was actually throwing was a highly sophisticated shine ball. He would rub the ball on his uniform and then start firing.

"Ban Johnson, the AL President, called Cicotte before him a number of times, always telling him, 'You've got to quite using that pitch.'

"Cicotte would reply, 'what pitch?' and that would just about end the conversation.

"Once, though, some Cleveland players sneaked into the White Sox clubhouse, took Cicotte's uniform, glove and cap and sent them to a chemist. All that was found on them was dirt."
   22. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 12:17 AM (#1038931)
Cicotte in a Baseball Magazine interview.

"The knuckle ball has been of great value to me. I confess that I depend upon it a great deal in my work. I think it is no exaggeration to say that out of 100 average balls I thow, 75 are knuckleballs."
   23. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 12:20 AM (#1038933)
Cobb and Cicotte, by the way, were minor league teammates, so I guess Cobb might have had a better understanding of what Cicotte threw. Cicotte claimed he worked on perfecting the knuckler his whole career, so likely Cobb saw it in the early stages.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 03:31 AM (#1039120)
Great stuff, jonesy!

Cicotte is a guy I have quite a bit on. I was contemplating making an attempt on a biography about him but have since turned my attention in another direction.

A certain Durham, North Carolinian maybe? :-)
   25. jonesy Posted: December 24, 2004 at 01:35 PM (#1039565)
The North Carolinian is a done deal. I was thinking of Cicotte as a second project but assumed that someone must be doing something on the guy - what with the increase in interest in the Black Sox. Anyone heard of a Cicotte bio in the works?

The project I have in mind in a biogaphy of Bill Jackman, potentially, in retrospect, the greatest pitcher in baseball history. Certainly the greatest one that no one has ever heard off.
   26. yest Posted: December 26, 2004 at 03:26 AM (#1040768)
I'm confident that Cicotte would have made it IF he hadn't made that stupid mistake of his in 1919.

boy thats an understatment
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2004 at 03:53 AM (#1040778)
boy thats an understatment

I take it you agree with me, yest? :-D
   28. Paul Wendt Posted: December 29, 2004 at 06:43 PM (#1045111)
Cicotte himself is known to have been worried about his approaching career end when he threw the 1919 WS

This suggests a subjective sense of decline but there may have been other age-related considerations. Eg, it was time to get started as a farmer, businessman or preacher.

Jim Sandoval is covering Eddie Cicotte for the Deadball AL collected biographies (SABR), which means a 2- or 4-page article. He was one member of the 1919 World Series panel at the 2004 SABR Convention. From the program: "a history teacher and freelance writer . . . working on a book on the 1919 Reds."

There is a '1919BlackSox' yahoo group organized by Gene Carney, a member of the same SABR34 panel and the "author of an unpublished book, Never on Friday, on the cover-up of the Fix. Two-Finger Carney at baseball1
   29. Bleacher Posted: January 03, 2005 at 09:57 PM (#1053885)
Thanks, Dan. Glad I had those guys on my ballot! When did they sneak by me? I thought I read all of the induction year results.
   30. Bleacher Posted: January 03, 2005 at 09:58 PM (#1053890)
Sorry, that comment was meant for another thread.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:19 PM (#2171369)
Going through my re-eval, I was struck by the very close sim of Cicotte to Don Drysdale.

WS

Cicotte 254 35-35-27-24-21-19-18-14-13-13-12-11-11 (13 years > 10)
Drysdale 258 27-26-25-24-22-21-21-19-18-18-14-13 (12 years)

Cicotte has much the higher peak (2-3-4 years) the Drysdale a slight edge for years 5-12 but in the end just 4 WS for Drysdale. This is with season length adjustment for the WWI years.

ERA+

Cicotte 123 185-75-74-55-32-29-16-15-1 (9 years > 100 and ERA eligible)
Drysdale 121 155-48-40-29-28-22-18-15-13 (also 9 years)

Cicotte again the huge peak/prime advantage right through year 6, then slight edge Drysdale years 7-8-9. Career difference just 2 points.

In real numbers:

Cicotte 209-148, 2.38, 123 in 3226 IP
Drysdale 209-166, 2.95, 121 in 3432 IP

Both pitched in the stronger league of their time. And of course some will dock Cicotte his WS for 1919 and 1920 and then there is not much of a sim. And Drysdale's IP are more noteworthy for his time.

Ergo I have Drysdale at #6a and Cicotte at #14, but not so far apart.
   32. Mark Donelson Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:37 PM (#2171383)
I can certainly understand not extending Cicotte's credit beyond the statistical record, given the reasons for his early, um, retirement (I don't give him anything extra myself--I think no one but perhaps karlmagnus does?)...but are there really people simply not counting his 1919 and 1920?
   33. sunnyday2 Posted: September 08, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#2171431)
I think so but I couldn't say who. The argument I remember is that the goal of the season (1919, say) is to win the world championship. If you throw the World Series, then the entire season has been for naught. (Not sure what the argument for, or rather against, 1920 is.)
   34. yest Posted: September 08, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#2171434)
.but are there really people simply not counting his 1919 and 1920?
yes
I don't want him anywhere near the HoM
If you play the whole season to win the WS and than tank it that defeats the point
   35. ronw Posted: September 08, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#2171470)
sunny:

I don't dock Cicotte for 1919 and 1920, but I think the argument is that the Black Sox tanked a few games during the 1920 season as well.
   36. jimd Posted: September 08, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2171541)
(Not sure what the argument for, or rather against, 1920 is.)

The 1920 pennant race was close. The Sox finished 2 games behind Cleveland.

There are the allegations that they tanked games in 1920 (under blackmail pressure?), as mentioned by ronw. Reverse any two of these losses and the pennant is a tie.

There is also the disruption factor. When they were suspended, they were a game behind with 3 to play. The Sox then lost two of three to the Browns with a skeleton squad. A sweep could have gotten them to a tie-breaker game.

Either or both of these might have cost the Black Sox the 1920 pennant as well.
   37. jimd Posted: September 08, 2006 at 06:44 PM (#2171547)
Just another note:

The Sox had been on a tear, winning 10 of 11 when Comiskey suspended the indicted.

The loss was at Cleveland (Sox took two of three games), and was on the same day that Rube Benton named Cicotte and others at the Grand Jury hearings in Chicago. I don't know if the Sox players knew of the testimony before the game.
   38. yest Posted: September 08, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2171565)
If they never through the 1919 series they don't get kicked out and probobly win the pennant
   39. Mark Donelson Posted: September 08, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#2171728)
I don't want him anywhere near the HoM

Well, that's different: You're not removing his numbers for two particular years, you're just not considering him at all. Essentially, you're removing ALL his years, which is logically consistent, though I disagree with you about it.

But the other objections don't make any sense to me. He didn't throw any games that we know of in the 1919 regular season, so why not count his WS then? And even if he had, or if he did in 1920...well, doesn't that affect his WS negatively?

I get it if you just won't consider Cicotte and his cohorts at all, but if you ARE willing to look at his record, I don't see how you can just pretend he didn't exist in 1919 and 1920.
   40. jimd Posted: September 09, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#2171789)
He didn't throw any games that we know of in the 1919 regular season, so why not count his WS then?

Answer:

If you throw the World Series, then the entire season has been for naught.
   41. Mark Donelson Posted: September 09, 2006 at 12:37 AM (#2171825)
If you throw the World Series, then the entire season has been for naught.

Yeah, I got it. Just doesn't make sense to me.

He still pitched to win the rest of the time that year as far as we know, and pretty effectively. If you feel his crime prevents him from getting in, period, no matter his numbers that year or any year, that's one thing. But to just remove his stats for that year? I don't get it.

I don't think I'm going to get it, though--no need to explain further. I think we just disagree about the basic premise of the logic here.
   42. karlmagnus Posted: September 09, 2006 at 12:46 AM (#2171828)
I also think it's unconstitutional to remove his 1919 or 1920 stats, or to blackball him for more than 1 year.
   43. Mark Donelson Posted: September 09, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#2171832)
I also think it's unconstitutional to remove his 1919 or 1920 stats, or to blackball him for more than 1 year.

I kind of thought that too, but figured I had misthought, since everyone seemed to be accepting this.
   44. karlmagnus Posted: September 09, 2006 at 01:26 AM (#2171868)
We probably need a Commish ruling on this one, if he has a moment.
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: September 09, 2006 at 04:46 AM (#2171966)
I don't discount Cicotte's stats but I can't imagine that it's unconstitutional to do so.
   46. Paul Wendt Posted: September 09, 2006 at 06:57 AM (#2171997)
He didn't throw any games that we know of in the 1919 regular season, so why not count his WS then?

you mean, because Win Shares is calculated only for the season not the playoff

And even if he had, or if he did in 1920...well, doesn't that affect his WS negatively?

Yes and no. Not fully. Far short of fully, I guess. The starting pitcher gainst a weak team may be able to cost the team 2 WS by losing the game.
   47. DCW3 Posted: September 09, 2006 at 07:30 AM (#2171999)
I know nothing about Cicotte, but I do like David Strathairn, the actor who played him in Eight Men Out.

Strathairn's not a HOF'er, but he's one of those guys who helps win ballgames, so to speak.


And in the nearly two years since this was posted, Strathairn turned himself into a top MVP candidate...so to speak.
   48. Mark Donelson Posted: September 09, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#2172122)
The starting pitcher gainst a weak team may be able to cost the team 2 WS by losing the game.

I imagine it depends precisely how subtly he goes about tanking. Anyway, if you can calculate it with some accuracy, I can see docking him extra WS for this stuff, but not just wiping out the season.
   49. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#2173299)
Not that I need to dock Cicotte to keep him off ballot but I do believe in wiping out everything after the player makes the decision to throw games. There is a good reason that the punishment for this is a lifetime ban. There is a good line of argument that Cicotte should have been banned from baseball at that point going forward and shouldn't get credit for any accomplishments.
   50. jimd Posted: September 11, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#2173687)
I also think it's unconstitutional to remove his 1919 or 1920 stats, or to blackball him for more than 1 year.

It's unconstitutional to blackball him for more than 1 year.

For the rest, I would suggest rereading the 1926 and 1927 discussion and ballot threads. This was all hashed and rehashed when the Black Sox first became eligible.

I removed the 1919 and 1920 seasons for both Jackson and Cicotte. Yes, their seasons demonstrate the ability to play well at the ML level, but their actions rendered the seasons valueless. Their performance has no merit, so they get no credit. I give back 1920 to Jackson as a proxy for his WWI credit in 1918. With Cicotte, this discussion is moot because he doesn't make my ballot anyway even with full credit.
   51. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 13, 2006 at 04:40 PM (#2175669)
"We probably need a Commish ruling on this one, if he has a moment."


Been out of the loop for about a week here guys. Apologies.

Obviously it's constitutional to blackball him for a year. That would have been 1926.

As for docking his entire 1919, I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

I do think it's unconstitutional to dock his 1920, unless there is evidence that they actually threw games that year. I haven't seen any. Accusations aren't evidence. There's plenty of evidence for 1919 without an actual conviction. As far as I know, they were never sanctioned for anything they did in 1920.

I also think it's unconstitutional to not consider his entire career because of what happened in 1919.
   52. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 13, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#2175747)
As far as I know, they were never sanctioned for anything they did in 1920.


No, they weren't.

I guess the question here would be "what do you consider evidence that would justify docking a player"? There's evidence that Cobb and Speaker actually did conspire to throw a game; the fact that Judge Landis found that evidence inconclusive and exonerated both players doesn't mean that it's not evidence. There's certainly evidence that the gamblers were still getting to the Black Sox in 1920; the fact that no one used it against them at the time doesn't mean that it's not evidence.

-- MWE
   53. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2175754)
I guess what I would say to jimd, yest, et. al. is this:

Since Joe is saying that there's not enough evidence to justify docking Cicotte for 1920, if you believe that there is, make the argument.

-- MWE
   54. jimd Posted: September 14, 2006 at 12:32 AM (#2176224)
I guess what I would say to jimd, yest, et. al. is this:

Since Joe is saying that there's not enough evidence to justify docking Cicotte for 1920, if you believe that there is, make the argument.


I'll repeat: With Cicotte, this discussion is moot because he doesn't make my ballot anyway even with full credit.

It's also moot with Jackson, as he is already elected.
   55. yest Posted: September 15, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2177447)
if I give Cicotte credit for 1920 he still dosn't make my top 50 (not even bothering to check past that point)
but I think that he doesn't deserve the credit because if he doesn't throw the seiries and the "8" don't get the boot the Whitesox probobly win the pennant in 1920
thus his off the field actions prevented the 1920 pennant
here's the quote from the Constitution
Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player’s on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player’s baseball games.


I think his actions in 1919 caused the sox to lose the 1920 pennant and since the whole point of the season is to win it all and because of him they didn't I think it's allowed by the Constitution
   56. mulder & scully Posted: September 15, 2006 at 06:50 PM (#2177864)
Though I rarely agree with yest, I do agree with his stance about the Black Sox in 1920. The point is to try to win the pennant/World Series, and the actions of the Black Sox in 1919 directly led to their being suspended/kicked out in late September of 1920.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4047 seconds
49 querie(s) executed