Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Baggarly: Vogelsong for Cy?

Yeah, the Cy Coleman Award. Maybe.

But Vogelsong provided the base of the pyramid yet again. It’s been astounding how consistent he’s been all season. It’s now 19 out of 21 quality starts, and he hasn’t failed to complete six innings once.

What do you think? From All-Star snub to Cy Young Award winner?

I’m not sure if Vogelsong could be considered a favorite at the moment, although he does own the lowest ERA in the NL among qualified starters, at 2.27. There are some who will argue Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel merit serious attention, and they have a case.

I, for one, would prefer to vote for a worthy starting pitcher. But I’m not opposed to relievers winning the award if they are having a truly dominant, impact season.

...But Vogelsong … man, you look up after a start like Wednesday night – tough lineup, on the road, only three strikeouts in seven innings – and you wonder how he kept the Cardinals off the board. How did he keep them from doing any damage?

Here’s one big reason: Vogelsong has held opponents to a .143 average with runners in scoring position. He’s allowed just 15 hits with a runner at second or third all season.

Repoz Posted: August 09, 2012 at 09:32 AM | 40 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: awards, giants

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. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4204162)
Good for him. This is a great story and I wish him the best of luck - wish the Halos had taken a chance in him...
   2. dr. scott Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:30 AM (#4204193)
After the chapman thread yesterday, and watching the game last night I was thinking the same thing, but only because Im a Giants fan. If there were an award for the best 5th starter in the century, he should get it.

that being said he has 3.7 war, so its not out of the question, but its all on a very low BABIP.

Go Ryan!
   3. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4204200)
but its all on a very low BABIP.

I don't think this should matter that much when it comes to awards voting. I think you vote on what happened, not what should have happened base on advanced metrics.
   4. dr. scott Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4204280)
Totally agree, but the unmentioned part of low BABIP is that the K and walk rate are not nearly as good as the competitors. He is either very lucky or has great fielders. One may not last and I'm not sure he should get credit for the other.
   5. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4204285)
Totally agree, but the unmentioned part of low BABIP is that the K and walk rate are not nearly as good as the competitors. He is either very lucky or has great fielders. One may not last and I'm not sure he should get credit for the other.

Yeah, I wouldn't vote for him for this reason. I just mean theoretically, if a pitcher had a ridiculous year because of a fluky BABIP I wouldn't hold it against him. Since Vogelsong is bunched with a lot of other guys, I'd go with the secondary stats as a tie breaker.
   6. The District Attorney Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4204360)
TFA:
Chapman hit a bump or two in July, but his numbers are just so ridiculous, and the Reds are playing so well by shortening the game to six innings, essentially, that I think he might be my choice if I had to fill out a ballot right now.
Chapman gets credit for shortening a game to six innings, by dint of pitching one inning?

I am awarding the Things I Have To Do After I Wake Up And Before I Leave My House Award to "locking the door."
   7. Morph Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4204409)
I don't think this should matter that much when it comes to awards voting. I think you vote on what happened, not what should have happened base on advanced metrics.


Yes, I agree with this as well. Let's say Jon Garland has an amazing, low .BABIP fueled season somewhere around the middle of the last decade, a season surpassing even 2005, in the realm of a 2.50 ERA and 24 wins. He would deserve the Cy Young based on the reality of the season. Going forward you would rather have C.C. Sabathia or Verlander, but an award for a single season does not require forward thinking. It's just an acknowledgment of "hey, great season."
   8. MM1f Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4204411)
Vogelsong looked pretty unhittable last night, particularly his curve. But then again the Cardinals looked pretty awful at everything last night too.
   9. Dan Posted: August 09, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4204693)
If I had to choose an NL CY right now, I'd go with Dickey.
   10. The District Attorney Posted: August 09, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4204715)
Let's say Jon Garland has an amazing, low .BABIP fueled season somewhere around the middle of the last decade, a season surpassing even 2005, in the realm of a 2.50 ERA and 24 wins. He would deserve the Cy Young based on the reality of the season.
Like most people here, I wouldn't really care about the wins... and I wouldn't give him credit for a "2.50 ERA" if the reason he had a low BABIP was because he had a team of fantastic fielders behind him.

The problem is disentangling the luck aspect of BABIP from the defense aspect of it. It's a problem to be sure, but I definitely wouldn't just give up on it at the point in the analysis you're proposing.
   11. Walt Davis Posted: August 09, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4204747)
I am awarding the Things I Have To Do After I Wake Up And Before I Leave My House Award to "locking the door."

You lock the door after you wake up but _before_ you leave? :-) See, these award criteria are trickier than you think!
   12. dr. scott Posted: August 09, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4204765)
#10 Yes this is exactly what I was trying to get to in #4. At the moment I would just count it against him as someone with similar numbers without the low BABIP is probably the better pitcher.
   13. Bourbon Samurai in Asia Posted: August 09, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4204770)
You lock the door after you wake up but _before_ you leave? :-) See, these award criteria are trickier than you think!


Keeps him from going outside and ####### everything up. Sounds like a justified award winner to me!
   14. The District Attorney Posted: August 09, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4204781)
Okay, I should have said "apartment", you wiseasses...
   15. BochysFingers Posted: August 09, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4204794)
While I'd agree that Dickey at the moment might be more deserving, I do pose the following question:

Pitcher A: 20-4, 225IP, ERA+ 175, BABIP .200, K/9 5.0
Pitcher B: 20-4 225IP, ERA+ 150, BABIP .275, K/9 10.0

Assume that the two teams these pitchers play for are of similar quality, and there are no other serious candidates for the Cy. Who do you vote for?
   16. BochysFingers Posted: August 09, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4204803)
I guess the other thing to look at would be the BABIP for the other Giants - is Vogelsong's much lower? If it is, over a course of a season, there would have to be more than luck involved, no?
   17. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: August 09, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4204893)
I guess the other thing to look at would be the BABIP for the other Giants - is Vogelsong's much lower? If it is, over a course of a season, there would have to be more than luck involved, no?

Not necessarily. Run support numbers used to have this happen all the time. Two pitchers on the same team, one pitcher gets 3.5 runs a game scored for him, the other gets 6.5 and therefore wins more games. For example, with the first team I chose, the Orioles, this year Matusz has a run support of 2.8 and Chen a 4.7. The Red Sox are scoring 2.5 runs more for Doubront than Lester. The Phillies scored 2 more runs for Blanton than Cliff Lee.

It seems to me, if BABIP shouldn't be used for Cy Young, then we're probably best going back to Wins and Losses for Cy Young. All of the problems with Wins and Losses exist (to a smaller extent) with BABIP as well.
   18. Ryan Lind Posted: August 09, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4204904)
Assume that the two teams these pitchers play for are of similar quality, and there are no other serious candidates for the Cy. Who do you vote for?


Pitcher B. No question.
   19. PreservedFish Posted: August 09, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4204912)
I would probably vote for Pitcher B. I understand the value/ability thing, and that the CYA ought to be awarding value, but I find it tough to pretend that I don't know to what an extent luck has helped Pitcher A. I wouldn't ever vote strictly by DIPS, but the secondary statistics are more than just a tie-breaker for me. I'd look at them immediately, right after ERA and IP.

It helps if you put names on it. Is this Randy Johnson (B) vs Brett Tomko (A)?
   20. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4204961)
I still can't believe this. Ryan Vogelsong? The guy the Giants traded with Armando Rios for Jason Schmidt? He's a legit Cy Young candidate? Or even just a really good starter? How on Earth...
   21. Bhaakon Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4204978)
I still can't believe this. Ryan Vogelsong? The guy the Giants traded with Armando Rios for Jason Schmidt? He's a legit Cy Young candidate? Or even just a really good starter? How on Earth...


Yeah. Between him and Colby Lewis, I'm really starting to think that teams should be diverting some of those posting fees towards signing Americans playing in Japan.
   22. Walt Davis Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4205003)
As we all know, pitchers have always been weird and pretty much impossible to get a handle on. About 27 tesms, dating back to the Boston Braves, gave up on Jamie Moyer. The early careers of Randy Johnson and Ollie Perez look similar. Almost nobody thought putting Lowe back into the rotation was gonna work (especially that well) much less somebody like Ryan Dempster who wasn't even succeeding as a reliever.

Dempster is probably as odd as Vogelsong really. Through age 30, he had over 1200 IP with an 89 ERA+. It's a wonder he was still in the majors really. From ages 31-35 he decides to throw 900+ innings (and counting) at a 116 ERA+. And not some wacky BIP run, he K'd over 8/9 with a 2.5 K/BB. Maybe he just needed everybody to get off the roids.
   23. Ryan Lind Posted: August 10, 2012 at 02:11 AM (#4205031)
To go back to 2007 and tell baseball fans that 3 of the top 5 ERA pitchers in the NL in five years time will be:

-Ryan Vogelsong, who was 29 years old and putting up a 4.18 ERA in Japan
-RA Dickey, who was 32 and putting up a 3.72 ERA for AAA Nashville.
-Kyle Lohse, 28, with a 4.72 ERA for the Phillies.

Five years later, these are three of the top pitchers in the NL, by ERA.

Okay then.

   24. Howie Menckel Posted: August 10, 2012 at 08:13 AM (#4205069)

Does it make me a bad person if I believe that Vogelsong is scuffing the ball at opportune times?
Wouldn't rule it out for Lohse, either.
   25. TomH Posted: August 10, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4205126)
"It seems to me, if BABIP shouldn't be used for Cy Young, then we're probably best going back to Wins and Losses for Cy Young. All of the problems with Wins and Losses exist (to a smaller extent) with BABIP as well."

Seriously?? If we use BAPIP, maybe we should also use go to the video tape, and count home runs that barely clear the wall as 60% of home runs, with warning track outs = to 1/3 extra base hits, taking into account wind on that day, and revise the pitchers' runs given up by what we think hr "should" have given up.

BAPIP is a GREAT tool for projecting forward. It has nothing to do with ballgames in the past. And paralleling it to a pitcher's W-L record; man, that's resally an apples/oranges thing.
   26. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4205149)
Five years later, these are three of the top pitchers in the NL, by ERA.

Or that in the AL, Bartolo Colon, who had a 6.34 ERA in 2007 and looked done, would be even fatter and having the best season he's had since his Cy Young season.
   27. Mattbert Posted: August 10, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4205157)
Cueto, Dickey, and Kershaw would be my top three for NL Cy if the season ended today.
   28. Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band. Posted: August 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4205166)
BAPIP is a GREAT tool for projecting forward. It has nothing to do with ballgames in the past.

Well, it has retrospective value in helping to assign credit to pitchers v. defense, but I'm generally in agreement with you.
   29. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4205184)
Dempster is probably as odd as Vogelsong really. Through age 30, he had over 1200 IP with an 89 ERA+. It's a wonder he was still in the majors really. From ages 31-35 he decides to throw 900+ innings (and counting) at a 116 ERA+. And not some wacky BIP run, he K'd over 8/9 with a 2.5 K/BB. Maybe he just needed everybody to get off the roids.


Of late, I have found my opinions of some players calcifying at a place they were a few years ago. I think this is typical of a certain kind of aging -- when I was 20 years old, it was easy to constantly revise my opinions of things, because my memory wasn't very long. But now it's different. Dempster is representative of that: I still think of him as a cruddy swingman rather than a solid-to-very-good starter.
   30. PreservedFish Posted: August 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4205216)
Dickey leads in Wins, Strikeouts, and Innings. 4th in ERA. He ought to be the favorite, right?
   31. TomH Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4205306)
except for som'a them there voters who think the Cy Guy ought to be on a playoff team...
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4205313)
except for som'a them there voters who think the Cy Guy ought to be on a playoff team...


For the Cy? I can't remember that ever being a significant, if any, factor. It sure would be hard to find any kind of winner's bias from the results.

   33. Mattbert Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4205315)
Dickey leads in Wins, Strikeouts, and Innings. 4th in ERA. He ought to be the favorite, right?

Cueto has a significant advantage in ERA+ (164 to 141) if you put stock in that sort of thing. And he's only ~9 innings behind Dickey in terms of work load.

Splitting hairs, really. Either would be a terrific choice at this stage.
   34. PreservedFish Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4205318)
Cueto has a significant advantage in ERA+ (164 to 141) if you put stock in that sort of thing.


Sorry, should have been clearer. I was trying to put myself into the mind of the average voter.

I do think that Kimbrel or Chapman would have a shot, but I wonder if they sort of cancel each other out.
   35. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4205321)
BAPIP is a GREAT tool for projecting forward. It has nothing to do with ballgames in the past.

1) It's calculated based on ballgames in the past.

2) The key point is _why_ it helps as a prediction tool going forward. It helps because it teases out pitching ability from all of the other things that contribute to a pitcher's stat line. A pitcher's numbers are a combination of a whole bunch of factors, only some of which has to do with the quality of his own pitching.

Now, as far as the numbers, Wins are the stat most directly related to the success of the team while he's on the mound. Unless we accept that we want to gauge the quality of the player's pitching for Cy Young purposes, then Wins will be our most important stat. But if we do accept that, the door is now open. If the door is open for ERA to walk through, it's open for strikeouts and walks and home runs and pitch FX data and leverage data and anything else that could help us determine just how well someone actually pitched as opposed to just a raw result _when_ he pitched. I just don't see how you stop at ERA. If you're going to go down the road at all past wins, you might as well keep going.
   36. GuyM Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4205336)
BAPIP is a GREAT tool for projecting forward. It has nothing to do with ballgames in the past.

I agree with what I assume is the idea here, which is that when assessing value (as opposed to talent) we should credit a pitcher for allowing easy (or hard) to field BIP. I have no problem with that. But that still doesn't mean you want to credit the pitcher with 100% of his BIP outcomes, because the quality of his team defense may have impacted that. So it's quite reasonable to try to estimate how much a pitcher was helped or hurt by the performance of his fielders, even if you believe pitchers should be credited for allowing easy to field BIP. By and large, the pitcher's own performance (or luck) will have a much larger impact on his BABIP than will his fielders. But the influence of the fielders is obviously not zero.
   37. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: August 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4205347)
I'm with Voros and Guy on this one. All the arguments about wins being teammate-dependent because of offensive support and distribution of events apply exactly to ERA (and other runs-based metrics). If you're a total stickler for "value", then I don't see how you land on ERA/ERA+/VORP/etc over wins. And if you're really big on isolating the individual's value from context and teammates, I don't see how you land on ERA/ERA+/VORP/etc over metrics like DIPS.

I'm not saying that anybody should just use wins. I'm saying that dismissing the fielding-independent stats while sticking with the fielding-dependent ones doesn't make sense to me, and the justification of looking only at the ballgames in the past doesn't work at all. Frankly, I look at lots of kind of metrics, rather than a straight ranking based on a preferred metric of choice. Runs-denominated, but also more granular, and also looking start-by-start (including considering things like opponents, parks, how deep a pitcher goes into games, etc).
   38. Walt Davis Posted: August 10, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4205844)
Well, while I think I'm more with Voros, Guy and Harold ...

1) ERA over wins because ERA takes run support out of it.

2) ERA+ over ERA because ERA+ takes ballpark out of it.

Clearly run support and ballpark are not related to pitcher performance. It is nearly inescapable that those are better measures (of performance or value) than wins.

After that things do become less clear as to what's pitcher performance and what's not. But I also think that most saber-y types would at least agree that the next question is legit:

Why ERA not RA? Earned vs. unearned runs is often a quite arbitrary distinction based on sometimes rather silly rules. Do we agree that in choosing between pitchers with equal ERAs that we'd choose the one who'd given up 0 unearned runs over the one with 10 unearned runs (and the few extra hits and BBs that account for those)?

But once you start crediting RA over ERA then, generally, you're essentially looking at some form of component ERA. The primary difference between CERA and FIP is how the blame for hits gets apportioned. CERA gives all the blame/credit to the pitcher.

Also why do we credit strikeouts? Leading the league in strikeouts pretty clearly only matters to (some of) us because it's an indicator of performance (dominance). Again, otherwise equal numbers, I'm pretty sure most of us take the guy with 200 Ks over the guy with 150 ... unless maybe the guy with 200 Ks also walked 80 while the guy with 150 walked only 40 (again a DIPS-style adjustment).

Anyway, in its simplest terms it comes down to these sorts of scenarios:

1. Pitcher A and B both throw a meaty fastball down the middle. In the case of A, it gets lined right to the SS; in the case of B, it gets lined between SS and 3B for a single. Identical performance, different results, wny give credit to A?

2. Pitcher A pitches in front of Ozzie Smith while pitcher B pitches in front of Kevin Mitchell or Howard Johnson or whoever else Davey Johnson felt like trotting out there that day. A and B give up exactly the same grounder to SS and A gets an out while B gives up a single. Identical performance, different results, why give credit to A?

3. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs. A strikes the batter out, B gives up a groundball out to second. Different performance, same result ... but B was at greater risk of giving up the runs. Why give B equal credit?

Generally we asume that 1 just evens out over time -- and I don't think any of the DIP-style stats adjust for LD% although I guess xFIP substituting mean HR/FB rates is similar (and I think goes too far but I've never bothered with the analysis behind it).

I hope everyone agrees that we ideally would find a way to adjust for 2. Yes, maybe A also surrenders easier to field GB but the gap between Ozzie and a bad SS is too big to ignore. Is there any way to make such an adjustment that isn't essentially DIPS-related?

I think 3 is where the controversy comes in. Do you ding the pitcher .3 hits for every extra BIP even if (by some miracle) none of them result in hits?

In essence if A's team converts BIP at .7 while B's team converts themn at .72 and B has a 20 point edge in BABIP, then we can "safely" ascribe that to better team defense and ignore it. If both teams convert BIP at .7 and B has a 20 point edge in BABIP, then we're in a tough spot. Within the context of a season it would be very difficult to determine how much of B's edge is performance and how much luck -- and making that determination on what are essentially actuarial statistics isn't exactly kosher.

Or, perhaps simpler still, I suspect most here have little problem using component stats, FIP, strikeouts, etc. as tiebreakers for similar pitchers. But if B outperforms A in ERA(+) terms and maybe even component ERA terms (i.e. hits included), many folks are uncomfortable with "penalising" B for being "lucky" on BIP to bring him back to equal with A. And I'm not sure any of us are confident enough in BIP adjustments to assure their accuracy.

And we certainly can't deny that even top sabermetricians disagree on this at some level -- bWAR vs fWAR, FIP vs xFIP -- so we can't really blame punters like me for being a bit queasy.

   39. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: August 10, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4205863)
1. Pitcher A and B both throw a meaty fastball down the middle. In the case of A, it gets lined right to the SS; in the case of B, it gets lined between SS and 3B for a single. Identical performance, different results, wny give credit to A?


What I think a lot of people miss is that there's also a third option here: in the case of A the ball gets crushed into the cheap seats for a homer, and in the case of B the ball is hit into a routine ground out. It's still the exact same performance by the pitcher.

Now obviously it's hard to tell what the "exact same pitch" really is, there could be differences in deception and things like that, even if the pitch itself was thrown the same speed in the same location with the same break. But the point is that results are _not_ performance, they are not identical things regardless of whether you use Wins, ERA, FIP or none of the above. What results _can_ do is give us insight into performance which is otherwise a difficult thing to measure. And I think the argument myself and others are making is that it's the additional insight that something like FIP gives above ERA that makes it a valid tool for Cy Young purposes.
   40. Ryan Lind Posted: August 10, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4205868)
2) The key point is _why_ it helps as a prediction tool going forward. It helps because it teases out pitching ability from all of the other things that contribute to a pitcher's stat line. A pitcher's numbers are a combination of a whole bunch of factors, only some of which has to do with the quality of his own pitching.


BINGO.

It blows my mind how often I see that people will acknowledge that a stat is better "for projections" but seem to fail at asking themselves WHY it's a good stat for projections. It's better at projections because it ignores certain noise and measures more of what the player actually did. That makes it good for measuring past performance too!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(20 - 3:12pm, Jul 24)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(893 - 3:11pm, Jul 24)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(85 - 3:09pm, Jul 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogA's designate Johnson for assignment
(1 - 3:08pm, Jul 24)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2970 - 3:05pm, Jul 24)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

Newsblog2015 Competitive Balance Lottery Results
(26 - 3:03pm, Jul 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(25 - 2:57pm, Jul 24)
Last: mathesond

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(64 - 2:45pm, Jul 24)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(7 - 2:27pm, Jul 24)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(41 - 2:12pm, Jul 24)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogJournal News: Recap of Derek Jeter Retirement Gifts
(28 - 1:52pm, Jul 24)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-24-2014
(7 - 1:32pm, Jul 24)
Last: Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(378 - 12:38pm, Jul 24)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(133 - 12:04pm, Jul 24)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(6 - 12:00pm, Jul 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

Page rendered in 0.2602 seconds
52 querie(s) executed