User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6902 seconds
75 querie(s) executed
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.
Hell, he could get hit by a bus today, and he'd still have a case.
He's already got the 100 RBIs!
I think Ichiro has a very strong case actually.
April: .200/.369/.306, 85 AB
May: .321/.385/.642 109 AB
June: .337/.450/.607 89 AB
July: .343/.418/.642 67 AB
It's a big lead, too.
Do you I think RTFI?
It's not.
Actually I thought that was the attitude that A-rods fan boys put down because it comepletely illustrated his inability to perform in clutch situations during previous seasons.
The Hoover Dam should definitely be in the HoF!
I'm not saying that J.J. Putz is the MVP or that he can sustain this level of performance, but there's no real argument that he's not in the discussion.
46.1 IP
If there were no really strong candidates, sure he'd be in the discussion. In a league with Alex Rodriguez hitting like he is, there's no chance whatsoever he could be in the discussion.
J.J. Putz is something like 3 wins above the average closer right now. A-Rod is something like 2.5 to 3.5 wins above the average third baseman, depending on what you think about his defense.
It's just not the home run you guys think it is.
But you can choose which 46.1 innings he pitches, every inning is important, there's value in that.
Is the average closer worth as much as the average 3rd baseman?
Bpro has A-rod as 38.7 runs above the average 3rd baseman offensively.
And I realize that some metrics seem to think A-rod is not having a good defensive year. Those metrics are wrong. ZR has A-rod as the best defensve 3rd baseman in the AL this year.
Isn't ZR a pretty mediocre metric? Don't get me wrong-- I wouldn't be at all surprised if A-Rod has learned to play the position well, but ZR alone doesn't seem to clinch anything.
Depends on who you believe I guess. Dial has done a pretty good job of convincing me, and UZR tends to agree with it. I haven't seen anyone offer any conclusive evidence that anything more advanced has proved to be more accurate.
On top of that, A-rod looks phenomenal at 3rd this year. And he "learned" how to play third in 04, and lost his range in 05-06 when he added bulk, which hurt his D. This year that has not been an issue because he slimmed down.
Closer isn't a position.
Does anyone have an estimate of how properly taking into account chaining would impact Putz' value however? That would seem to be the strongest case against him for MVP. The case for him as MVP would seem to focus on the fact that the Mariners are 8 games above .500 in spite of having outscored the opposition by only three runs.
He makes my personal top five, along with A-Rod, Polanco, VMart, and Ordonez.
This is, of course, a ridiculous assertion. You can argue that there shouldn't be closers, that an ideal roster usage would be drastically different than the one currently employed by MLB teams, and that the save stat is a black mark on baseball's adoption of more intelligent evaluative metrics, and I'd agree with almost all of that.
You have to have your head buried pretty far in the sand to believe that closer isn't a position in the 2007 version of MLB, however.
Call it whatever you want - relief ace, high leverage bullpen guy, closer, whatever. J.J. Putz is having one of the great relief seasons of all time, and the value of having that kind of dominating pitcher at the end of games is dramatically underrated in these kinds of discussions.
I find it amusing that so many people can simultaneously dismiss the value of J.J. Putz's season so far, while also looking at the Mariners record and wondering aloud how the hell this team is contending for a playoff spot.
You have to head buried pretty far somewhere else to believe that it's more valid to only compare Putz to other closers than, say, Hideki Okajima and all other relievers.
As noted above, closers are generally better leveraged than other relievers. Since closers (generally) tend to be better pitchers than other relievers, I'd bet Putz is pretty impressive when compared to all relievers as a whole, too.
Putz >>> major league relievers. A-Rod >>> major league third baseman.
This isn't that hard.
What's the replacement level for relievers? Honest question. Or do we use average? Is that average based on average inning thrown or average performer?
The other big question, which matters a lot when discussing this type of reliever, is whether we want to examine Putz in a context neutral setting or whether we should consider his leverage to be part of his value.
The fact that these are questions is nothing new but the equation
Putz >>> major league relievers. A-Rod >>> major league third baseman
is something I'm not exactly willing to take on faith. Aside from that, Larry's point is also relevant because nobody considers an average major league reliever to approximate the value of the average third baseman.
Do better then that. How good is a closer compared to a third baseman. How much better is each. Your guess numbers on A-rod were low, he's at least 4 wins better then the average 3rd baseman. I want to see something to back up the equal number of greater then signs you just put up.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that Putz has been both very good and very lucky so far. You don't see many pitchers allow three homers in 46 innings but only four runs overall, and 19 hits allowed in 46 innings seems pretty fluky to me.
My point is not that he hasn't been very valuable so far, but that it's very tricky to rate a closer on a half-season's work. Brian Fuentes was arguably the best closer in the NL when the All-Star teams were selected, but by the time the game was actually played, he had become a joke. Putz is one bad outing away from seeing that pretty 0.78 ERA double.
All of this is true, but the discussion is about MVP candidates, so I think we should be looking expressly at value rather than ability. Since it's about value we should also include "clutch" factors regardless of how we feel about "clutchness" as an ability. And even if you don't like WPA, Putz has been incredibly good/lucky/clutch (303 OPS against in Close and Late situations).
Tango says its equivalent to a .420 Win%, IIRC.
The other big question, which matters a lot when discussing this type of reliever, is whether we want to examine Putz in a context neutral setting or whether we should consider his leverage to be part of his value.
The leverage has to be included in an MVP discussion. It matters to backwards-looking value questions such as this one. If we were doing a true talent level discussion, throw leverage out the window, and no one on earth would even put Putz and A-Rod in the same category. But MVP does not equal a true talent level discussion. Leverage absolutely matters, even if it's not predictive.
Aside from that, Larry's point is also relevant because nobody considers an average major league reliever to approximate the value of the average third baseman.
That's due to scarcity. The value of an average third baseman is a lot higher than the value of an average reliever because there are so many more average relievers floating around. The same scarcity argument does not apply here. Putz is having an historic relief season. His first four months aren't the kind of production you can find easily.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that Putz has been both very good and very lucky so far. You don't see many pitchers allow three homers in 46 innings but only four runs overall, and 19 hits allowed in 46 innings seems pretty fluky to me.
I agree - there's no way this is sustainable long term. For MVP purposes, though, that's irrelevant. Fluke or not, he really has stranded every single important baserunner this season. That's remarkably valuable.
That is a staggering feat. If the Yanks had Putz instead of Rivera, they'd have 65 wins and be running away with the AL East.
Putz is having a good season, but he's pitched 65% of his innings in Safeco field, against mostly bad hitters, and he's probably been lucky on top of that.
I'm guessing the argument will be moot in a few months, but even right now, I wouldn't put Putz is in the top 10 for MVP. I see little separation between him and Betancourt, Okajima, Neshek, Nathan, K-Rod, etc.
OK, it's an interesting tool for analyzing the ebb and flow of a game, but it is completely useless for evaluating the value of a position player.
For the thousandth time, I want someone to explain to me how a 3 run homer in the ninth is worth more than a 3 run homer in the 1st.
You can't.
Because it's not.
If the latter wins you the game, while the former is wasted in a 13-3 loss, how does that reflect at all on the contribution of the hitter? We are blaming the hitter because the pitching staff gave up 13 runs? In both instances, the hitter contributed exactly the same thing to his team: 3 runs.
And it's even worse than that. If a hitter hits a 3 run homer in the first and his team wins 3-2, his WPA added is far less than a 3-run homer with two outs in the bottom of the ninth with the team down 2-0. How can any logical person think that that makes any sense whatsoever?
WPA is horsepoopy.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't think that's how WPA works. I base this only on the fact that tango isn't idiot.
So, is Putz the case where folks could vote a pitcher MVP but not Cy Young in the same season? Guys like Haren and Santana have been great for about 100 more innings so far this season. I am curious what others think as I think an argument could be made where Putz gets MVP votes before Cy Young votes.
Yes? No? Curious.....
The first inning homer takes you from like 50/50 win probability to probably somewhere in the 70s, the 9th inning homer takes you from negative win probability to 100%.
That is how WPA works. The first situation is worth less than 0.5 WPA (since both teams start off with 50% win expectancy). The second situation is worth almost 1 WPA.
The 3R HR in the first inning makes your team likely to win the game. The 3R HR in the bottom of the ninth makes your team certain to win the game. One action increases your team's chances of winning the game from about 50% to maybe 75%. The other increases your team's chances of winning the game from about 15% to 100%.
I don't see what's so complicated there.
Yes, what you say is true. And it has zero to do with how much each player contributed to his team's victory.
Isn't score differential the starting point for the leverage index?
No comment on WPA itself. Just that I was reminded of that anecdote......
Some sort of odds or log odds transform might make it smell less bad.
Say Putz comes on tonight with a 3-run lead, loads the bases, and gives up a grand slam. Suddenly, he's a closer with a 1.56 ERA and a K/9 slightly above 9. Whoop-ti-do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should decide MVPs and things like that based on events that didn't occur or judgments about whether the work is repeatable. I totally get that we're judging simply what did occur, not what we would expect to occur in the future.
But still...I just find it almost impossible to believe that someone is truly that valuable if one poor inning could completely remove them from contention. And it's not like I'm talking about a 13-run inning or something.
I guess I'd be a lot more willing to listen if the season ends, he still hasn't blown a save, and his ERA is still well below 1.00. But until September rolls around, I simply am never going to be willing to seriously entertain the notion that a closer is a viable candidate for MVP unless we have a Gagne 2003 + Thigpen 1990 + Eckersley 1990 sort of season.
Erroneous.
One made his team's victory likely. The other made it certain.
Were Putz to have an inning like that, it would leave him still either second or third on the WPA leaderboard, and he'd remain far above any other reliever. That inning would completely remove him from contention, but only because A-Rod has been so absurdly good.
1)Player A hits a grand slam in the bottom of the first inning of a 0-0 game. Team leads 4-0.
2)Bullpen gives up 5 runs in the top of the 9th.
3)Player B hits a two run single with two outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th.
The big WPA winner on the day: Player B.
Who actually contributed more to the win (let's say the both went hitless in their remainin at bats)? Why, Player A of course.
In fact, if the bullpen gets three outs in the top of the 9th, player B doesn't even bat.
WPA is a stupid and silly when used as an evaluative tool. It is, however, a really fun toy for examining the ebb and flow of a baseball game.
Okay, let's play a game. You and I, we're going to get 9 hitters of equal talent level - over 27 outs, they'll total 8 hits which will be distributed as 5 singles, 1 double, and 2 home runs. Since game state has no impact on value, you'll have no problem letting me choose what situations both teams get their hits and outs in. Deal?
Good. Now, your team gets to hit back to back home runs in the first inning, hit a two out double in the second, and then hit one single each in innings 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. You will, of course, score 2 runs.
My team is going to do nothing for innings 1-7, letting your pitcher enter the 8th with a perfect game. My team will then go single-single-single-home run-single-single-double-home run before the inning ends. My team, of course, will score 8 runs.
I'll beat you 162-0 over the course of a season. And our teams have the exact same talent level.
When it comes to wins and losses, distribution and game state matters heavily.
In both situations, the player hits a home run.
In both situations, the pitching/defense gives up 2 runs over 9 innings.
In both situations, if the player strikes out, the team loses.
As a tool which tells us *at the exact moment* how much difference a play makes WPA is perfectly fine. As a tool to assess afterwards the contributions of each player, I remain unconvinced it tells us anything more than we would get from asking a 6 year old.
I don't actually think this is true - that's the problem. Player A's contribution, while more indicative of him being a good player, had less impact on his team's chances of winning the game.
The score differential at the time is paramount. Once something has happened however, the WPA for that event is locked in. It doesn't get increased or decreased based on future events.
One made his team's victory likely. The other made it certain.
That is not true. A grand slam in a 4-1 victory makes a victory certain once all 9 innings have been played as surely as a grand slam in the ninth inning does. WPA wants to penalize hitters for not seeing into the future. Each innning, each run, counts exactly the same in the context of an entire baseball game.
Think of it this way...imagine a baseball game where nobody keeps score as the game is going, and everyone is like that guy from Momento, so nobody really remembers who scored what, but every time you score a run, you throw a wood chip in a bucket or something. At the end of the 9 innings, you count up all the wood chips in the bucket to see who won. I think this ridiculous premise makes it clear that runs are runs are runs. If one team has four chips in the bucket, and the other team has 1, the the first team wins. Right/
To further point out the flaw in your argument, there are lots of things that make victory "certain," while a three run homer only makes it "likely." Inducing a pop up with two outs in the ninth makes victory "certain." It's still not more valuable than a three run homer.
That being said, I think it's A-Rod in a walk. Leading in VORP and WPA? Come on.
What gets V-Mart on the list while Posada is left off it?
I don't actually think this is true - that's the problem. Player A's contribution, while more indicative of him being a good player, had less impact on his team's chances of winning the game.
Patently false! A grand slam has less impact on a team's chances of winning a game than a two run single?!?! When both hits are occurring in the same game?! How can you believe that that is true?
In both situations, the pitching/defense gives up 2 runs over 9 innings.
In both situations, if the player strikes out, the team loses.
As a tool which tells us *at the exact moment* how much difference a play makes WPA is perfectly fine. As a tool to assess afterwards the contributions of each
Well said.
My team is going to do nothing for innings 1-7, letting your pitcher enter the 8th with a perfect game. My team will then go single-single-single-home run-single-single-double-home run before the inning ends. My team, of course, will score 8 runs.
But you are arranging the hits in such a way as to produce more runs. Obviously, scoring more runs matters. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the same amout or less runs being assigned more value than a greater amount of runs based on the situation in the game in which they occur. You would win your hypothetical situation no matter what inning you decided to string your hits together, whether it was in the first or the ninth.
At the time of the grand slam in the first inning, we don't know the results of innings 2-8. The situations are different, so their impacts on your chances of winning are different.
Assuming you hold all other actions stable in the course of the game, sure, but that's not how it works.
That the people watching don't realize the difference between game states doesn't make the difference any less real.
This is a fair point, albeit an empty one. It's true, the difference isn't the certainty, but the impact on the team's chances of winning. Certainty in and of itself cannot be used as a litmus test however - you are correct.
A grand slam in the situation you described has less impact on a team's chances of winning a game than a two run single in the situation you described.
You are giving a situation with context, describing events, and then trying to strip away the context. You can't do that without running into problems.
A clutch rating of +0.35 rather than a clutch rating of -0.22 I'd guess.
A: 5th inning down 1, guy hits a homer; 9th inning tie game, same guy hits another homer.
B: 5th inning down 1, guy strikes out; 9th inning down 1, same guy hits two run homer.
Apparently the second situation has a better WPA, someone want to explain how the hell that makes sense?
The game states are different.
Yeah, again, so what? Once all nine innings have been played, why does WPA have any value whatsoever? Probability is no longer even a question?!?!?! We know exactly how many runs were needed to win the game, we know who drove the runs in, who scored the runs, etc. We are completely capable of saying what player contributed more to the victory without employing silly probability tools that no longer have any meaning. Don't tell me after I've lost $10,000 at the roulette wheel that my sping gave me a 48% chance of doubling my money. I already lost it; it's over.
Moreoever, while at a certain point in time a hit may have a certain impact on the probability of a team winning, once the game is over why do we care? That information no longer has any value beacuse we know who won, we know what the final score was. We know that the grand slam in the fisrt inning was the margin of victory in a 4-3 game, just as surely as we know that to be the case after seeing a walkoff grand slam in the ninth inning.
anyway, the real problem with WPA is not that it assigns greater value to one grand slam over another, it's that it assigns greater value to a two run walkoff single than a first innning grand slam. If you design a stat that gives a two run single more value than a grand slam, it's time to start over. Sort of like if you design an evaluative tool that tells you Nappy Lajoie is better than Babe Ruth...that doesn't mean you're a genius that has made a revoultionary discovery. It means you should burn your research and go back to the drawnig board.
You are giving a situation with context, describing events, and then trying to strip away the context. You can't do that without running into problems.
Jesus, Bibigon. I gave you the context. In a game in which ONE TEAM SCORED SIX RUNS, and the OTHER TEAM SCORED FIVE RUNS, one player on the winning team was responsible for four of those runs, the other player was responsible for two. WPA is trying to tell me that the second player was more valuable or contributed more to his team winning the game. Anyone with half a brain
can see that that is total crap. Again, I'll repeat, ONE THE GAME IS OVER, probability has NO VALUE WHATSOEVER because YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
ONCE THE GAME IS OVER, IT DONT MAKE A HAM HOCKS DIFFERENE who did what when. Each team player nine innings, one team scored more runs. End of story, PERIOD.
Yeah, I get that. What I want to know is why it's supposed to make sense. I'm supposed to believe that a strikeout and a homer is better than two homers when the game ends the same way?
See, that's the real problem with your argument. You have a conclusion in mind, if something doesn't pass your smell test, you want to burn it. I'm not saying the smell test has no value, but something not passing the smell test isn't a reason to conclude it's wrong. Sometimes surprising things turn out to be true.
Old saying- want to know a foolproof way to judge who won a fight- ask a 6 year old.
Anyway, WPA is a fun thing to look at to watch thw ebb and flow of a game- but to use as a serious stat (it's always trotted out when potential MVP voting is discussed) is completely nuts.
Yes but after the fact the grandslam IS MORE VALUABLE. Someone could come up in the right spot a few times, bottom 9, winning or tying run on base- come through, and rack up more WPA than a far better player who produced more runs who produced more three run homers without which his team would have lost.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be useful to add WPA (or some fraction) to a player's winshares or WARP3 or some other "uberstat" when comparing players - but to use as a be all and end all as I've seen on many threads- it's worse than useless.
What if I told you that, by replacing the wheel with this super-awesome-roulette-wheel on your next spin, you would up your odds of doubling your money to 99%? I'm guessing you'd then replace the wheel. And then you'd win a lot of money, and you'd rightfully credit super-awesome-roulette-wheel for bringing you that great spin when you needed it most.
This is leverage. Managers do not live in a vacuum where they throw rocks in a bucket and no one is keeping score. They do not randomly use J.J. Putz to retire weak hitters in the second inning of a 10 run game.
Because managers mostly understand leverage, they employ players in a way that will maximize their chances of winning (not perfectly, but more than random, for sure) that game.
They employ closers in a way that will get them saves.
Yes, relievers can be used to maximize their leverage. Starting position players can't, however.
fixed.
There are some managers who almost certainly employ their players in a "pattern" that is worse than random
Actually, that's not true. As has been noted before, closers still end up pitching the most high-leverage situations, which is a better pattern than "random."
The Mariners have had 38 save opps and 9 blown saves.
Putz has 29 save opps and no blown saves
The top 16 players in save opps are as follows (only KC and Oakland are listed twice):
PLAYER TEAM BS SVOTodd Jones DET 5 32
Bobby Jenks CHW 5 32
Joe Borowski CLE 3 31
J.J. Putz SEA 0 29
Francisco Rodriguez LAA 2 27
Jonathan Papelbon BOS 1 23
Joe Nathan MIN 2 22
Chris Ray BAL 4 20
Jeremy Accardo TOR 3 19
Al Reyes TAM 1 18
Mariano Rivera NYY 2 17
Eric Gagne TEX 1 15
Octavio Dotel KAN 3 13
Joakim Soria KAN 3 13
Alan Embree OAK 2 12
Huston Street OAK 2 11
No "closer" has more than 5 Blown saves
The "average" closer has a save % of 88.3
Putz is at 100%
but since the average closer would have just 3.4 blown saves in 29 save opps- then Putz likely is not worth much moe than 3.4 wins over the average closer
the "worst" closer above has a save % of 76.9 (KC)
Putz is 6.7 saves better than that.
(by way of comparison BPRo has Putz at 5.5 expected wins above a replacement pitcher)
Arod has a warp1 of 7.6
Arod had (as of 7/8) 12 winshares above bench (or 4 wins above bench)
same ballpark?
If A-Rod's defense is as good as everyone in this thread has said, and UZR thinks, then he's a 4 win player so far. That gives him a clear, though not massive, 1 win advantage over Putz. If it's not been as good as fans/UZR thinks, it's basically a dead heat.
So, yes, same ballpark. Putz is clearly in the discussion - that's all I'm saying.
well the quote referred to players, closers are a small subset of players
also I think many teams do not employ their closers in the highest leverage situations- tehy emply them in save situations, driven by the definition of saves, and their set up men, or worse their loogys and roogys see the highest leverage spots
anyway- using BPRo's "lev" stat here are the teams whose "closers" are not their highest leveraged relief pitchers:
Texas
Tampa Bay
Oakland
HoustonCubs
then there are those teams whose most highly leveraged RP is their closer- but whose closers are not the best RP on the team...
Washington, Toronto, etc...
The first inning homer, combined with the 8 innings of good pitching, gets you the win. The ninth inning homer, combined with the 8 innings of good pitching, gets you the win. It's the exact same -- just in a different order. (What's different is our knowledge at the time of the hit -- but after the game, we have the same knowledge about both.)
You don't know that at the time you hit it, but so what? Your knowledge doesn't change the value. It's still 4 runs vs. 2 runs, in a game where the other team has scored 5.On the contrary. WPA tries to add some context (game state) but strip away other context (what happens in the rest of the game).
Yes the replacement level is too low, but that doesn't render the stat useless, just flawed.
The worst regular 3B by OPS is Nick Punto .218/.309/.285
(the worst team performance at 3b is Minnesota's at .234/.306/.328 hmmm I sense a pattern here)
AROD has 98 RC in 437 PA (269 outs) (Q & D here just taking BBREF's #s
Punto has 28 RC in 361 PA (258 outs)
AROD has about 64-68 more RC than Punto would have given ARODs PAs or Outs
at a rough estimate of 10 runs per win- that gives AROD about 6-7 wins above the worst Al 3B
Putz is about 6-7 wins better than the "worst" closer.
Same ball park, but Putz is hitting a wall- he CAN'T do any better
AROD can (highly highly highly unlikely)- he's at .313/.414/.662
he could go to .335/.435/.700 and blow Putz away- even if Putz pitched even better he wouldn't really add more value at this point.
But unless the high-leverage pitcher has a unique ability to perform at that level in those high-leverage situations than the lower-leverage pitcher would, I don't know that this information captures something about the reliever that we ought to be rewarding. At that point, the only thing we're rewarding the high-leverage guy for is the situations he happened to find himself in, not for how he personally performed.
WPA is win advancements minus loss advancements. Both are listed at Fangraphs.
Putz has appeared in 43 games, pitched 46.3 innings, faced 161 batters, and has 5 put outs and 3 assists.
A-Rod is obviously having an incredible season, providing massive value on offense, together with good defense per UZR and other measures. Forgive me if I have some difficulty assigning equal MVP status to a guy who has appeared in less than half of his team's games, only affects one side of the win-loss equation, is in most cases only called upon when his team already has the lead, and has played less innings all told than A-Rod does in a week.
The fact that WPA equates the contributions of these players should be all you need to know that it does not pass the smell test.
I don't get the extreme positions people are taking about WPA. It's a fascinating stat, worth the time to include in these sorts of discussions. In this case, you can decide to divide by the leverage index and/or you can set a baseline below average. Fangraphs lists both win advancements and loss advancements to help you do both -- there are a myriad of statistical things you can do with that info.
I agree it's not the ultimate stat, but I personally like having a stat that doesn't distill a game into sterile bits and bytes, but keeps the emotional ins and outs of a game intact. It is precisely that sort of stat that will highly value closers who are deployed effectively. Why is that a "wrong" perspective?
BTW, Win Shares does include an aspect of WPA, giving recognition to closers for highly leveraged situations.
Yes.
worth the time to include in these sorts of discussions.
No.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main