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 0.6950 seconds
56 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.
Yeah, I thought that was unfortunate as well. But you really have to give the piece credit for encapsulating the scope of James’ journey, from night watchmen to valued member of the Red Sox front office. Pretty amazing.
I guess they just needed 60 Minutes to tell them it was ok to crawl out from under their desks...the bombing is over.
Costas must be hanging around with Keith & Clyde too much...waaay overboard with the Lilliputian Formula 16®
That's what I thought. Not that it was great to see him, but that he was a guy who could convince people to take a look.
I thought it was a shame they didn't portray more of the fan in James. I think they were getting to it at the end but I'd guess they edited James' humble comments down a bit. Anyway, my wife really enjoyed it and thought it (James') was a great story.
James' answer: There are guys here who understand that stuff more than me.
The answer you know he wanted to give: It's amazin' how no one ever talks about the great chemistry on a losing team.
Yeah, I assume the NCAA tournament went late; my tivo missed it also.
This tournament cannot end fast enough for me.
Quoted for truth. I think better of Costas, having seen this.
This tournament cannot end fast enough for me.
Why? I'd have CBS blocked except for the tourney. Their shows give me a headache within 30 seconds of watching them.
I can't wait for the silky restraint of a Harrelson or a Sterling after reading that.
Dick Vitale, I presume?
A more annoying person may not have walked the planet.
I also agree with kevin that James wasn't biting his tongue at all on the chemistry question. I think Safer misrepresented James and the best of sabermetrics in his implicit claim that the statheads think they have everything figured out. James' response to Safer was that there are innumerable aspects of baseball we don't know and don't understand - and perhaps that we can't understand with both abstraction and precision - and that "chemistry" features prominently among that great group.
What amazes me is how the man can be so loud despite having his head firmly implanted continuously within a one coach's or another's arse. You think it would muffle him at least a little.
He gets his shouting in as he's moving coach to coach. He's up everyone's arse. A truly unique talent.
That said, Davidson should have run some play other than "let the double teamed guy try to break loose". Ugh.
To me, Dick Vitale dropped his pants with his reaction to Bruce Pearl's exposing how corrupt big time college basketball is back in the day. Not even squeaky clean Duke is squeaky clean (amazing how the parents of some of their recruits are able to land cushy jobs they have absolutely no qualifications for), but Dick Vitale wouldn't want to besmirch those greatest men of history--the college basketball coach! Not a crook or charlatan among them. Those 7 footers wouldn't even know how to dunk if not for the genius instruction of the college basketball coach.
(Not that I think the coaches aren't good and important for the player's development, but how about a little measure in the praise? The players aren't just chess pieces being moved around by basketball Einsteins. They actually have to have skill and heart themselves. Their effort is their own and not wholly the product of their coach's greatness.)
OK, rant over. Sorry. Back to Opening Day!
I'll never understand why teams who are losing by one or two near the conclusion of the game and who have the ball feel it necessary to take the last shot. I mean, I understand the premise -- hit a three (in Davidson's case) and end it right there without going to overtime. But with 16 seconds to go, that's plenty of time to set up a play and still have time -- in case of a miss -- to foul a Kansas player on the rebound.
FWIW, the kid who Curry handed the ball off to got a relatively decent look. I just don't think he was at all prepared to take that shot.
And w/r/t the James interview, the only thing I take issue with is that they used Ortiz to disprove the whole 'clutch' debate. Ortiz is a great hitter -- in my mind, that's the reason you want him up at the plate when you're down one in the ninth. Calling him clutch seems to pigeonhole him a bit. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic premise of the clutch debate that a career .200/.300/.350 hitter -- over the long haul -- isn't going to be able to keep up a .330/.400/.450 line in close-and-late situations?
Guilty as charged. That sums up my feelings perfectly.
Where's Bob Feller? I should have a drink with him now that I know what it's like to be a crank.
Not to derail conversation on the James piece, but I agree with your post. It wasn't a terrible last shot. But it was too long and with not enough time on the clock. If it's tied, sure, take it down to the very last second. Behind, you have to get a shot off with time for a rebound or foul. I think they were trying this but it was clear that the play they'd called was to have Curry take his man one on one. Which, if they could've gotten it would've made sense. But why they thought KU would let Curry go one on one and not help is inexplicable. In any case, it was a nice run by Davidson.
I think the unclutch argument is more persuasive. That is, there are some great hitters who have a history, or at least a reputation, of faltering in big spots. Alex Rodriguez springs to mind.
To me, being clutch means not so much the ability to somehow raise your game under pressure but rather the ability to simply perform at your usual level under pressure and not wither. The guys who have a reputation for being clutch are typically, like Ortiz, plain ol' great hitters who just continue to be great regardless of the situation. Jeter, the archetype of clutch, doesn't perform any better in the clutch...he just doesn't get any worse.
I think some of that is in the marketing of college basketball. Players come and go relatively quickly, especially the big-time ones who bolt for the NBA after one year or two, but the prominent coaches (and, even moreso, some of the programs) are more or less permanent fixtures.
I also can't help but wonder if there's a bit of a racial/cultural component to this as well; the kind of people CBS wants watching this thing probably identify more readily with the coaches than with the players, for a variety of reasons.
Pass.
Of course, if you're a guy who is able to maintain in a clutch situation and you're facing a guy who isn't, your numbers may actually go up. I think this is one of those areas where sample size, number of variables and uncertainty will prevent us from ever really knowing THE ANSWER.
I think it has been shown, well enough, that you don't want some "clutch" player who isn't all that great up instead of a guy who is really good but may come down a bit in pressure situations. Say you were offered ARod or Francisco Cabrera (vintage 1992) in a clutch situation. You go with Arod every time.
If it's Ortiz or Arod you probably go with Ortiz. I guess I'd view the "clutch" adjustment as being pretty small over the long haul. Maybe Arod (for argument's sake) is .0006 worse and Cabrera is .0006 better. That doesn't make up the huge talent difference. But between Ortiz and Arod, maybe it does.
Yes, but knowing that, couldn't you have built that into your Tivo calculations?
Alex Rodriguez, 2007:
overall: .314/.422/.645
close & late: .357/.439/.686
bases loaded: .500/.444/1.286
runners on: .329/.443/.719
runners on, 2 out: .326/.435/.816
scoring position: .333/.460/.678
scoring pos, 2 out: .318/.448/.776
september: .362/.470/.723
Some people went college a long time ago.
I realized the possibility at about 8:20, just when the baseball season was starting, which was about 20 minutes too late.
Especially the CBS audience. "Martha, is that that James Meredith everyone keeps talking about? I must be seeing quintuple again. Get me my pills."
The problem is that if you didn't realize there was a basketball game on, like me, you didn't program tivo effectively.
When I briefly had tivo, the damn thing programmed me. You vill vatch Space Ghost now, Herr Shooty.
I just always assume CBS' Sunday programming is going to be running late, since as David mentioned, it usually is.
Regular season: 7350 at bats
Postseason: 147 at bats
I agree, if for no other reason than the fact that in every event he broadcasts, he goes completely insane by the end of the game.
Ok.
"big papi" career: 289/.384/.559
"big papi" in the 9th inning: .228/.328/.446
Oops.
Obviously he chokes in the 9th inning.
Hey, random splits in data are fun!
150 at bats amounts to six weeks of play, stretched out randomly over 12 years.
Did you miss the 2004 ALDS?
The mistake was that Curry should have shot with six seconds left when he broke the defender's ankle. Richards (who took the last shot) had been cold all night and he was well out of his range. I would have liked the chances better with Curry squaring himself in midair and shooting with three men in his face than with any other player shooting.
I'm still depressed from the long ride home from Detroit...
Unless I'm very much mistaken James and Costas go way back. I'm pretty sure they did some talk radio together in the 80s.
Another mistake was that during the entire play, Sander was totally uncovered for an easy drive to the hoop for a dunk/lay-up that would've tied the game. There was no one within 10 feet of him.
He did fine in the 2004 ALCS, obviously. He put up a .900 OPS against a playoff team.
He was 7-17 with 2 HRs over the first four games of the series. Had Mariano Rivera not choked :P and blown the save, Rodriguez would have been an ALCS hero on his way to the World Series.
It was a pretty fluffy piece, but I guess a good one for one not accustomed to baseball, let alone sabermetrics. My mom really enjoyed it.
I agree that I wish they would have said more about his writing and given some examples. They gave the impression that he's a math nerd with writing incomprehensible to the layman. That's the furthest thing from the truth. He made stats accessible to people that didn't even know math that well.
My dad got a big kick out of the "closer fallacy". He's been harping on that for years.
I'm really shocked they didn't mention Moneyball. I thought for sure that would be a topic of conversation.
Bill James went to "a large state school". Why the heck couldn't they say KU? Give credit where credit is due! You just showed them winning a basketball game, and they did show a picture of William White Hall, just say the name!
Steffen Curry is really, really good at basketball. He had Andrew Sander wide open for the last shot, but couldn't see him. I really think since KU was so focused in on Curry, Davidson probably could have gotten off a fairly easy two point bucket. Thank god they didn't.
I always TiVO "Cold Case" because "60 Minutes" always starts at 6:30 Central due to sports. I hate that CBS doesn't account for this, and that TiVO is subject to CBS's quirky scheduling whims.
GO HAWKS!
Well no. Standard error in a 200 PA trial is on the order of 110 points of OPS.
Or to put it another way, do the stats for full-time players in the middle of May tell you anything worthwhile about how good a player is?
James now has clutch hitting on his website, so why didn't Morley ask him about it. Also, I do recall that James had stated that he thought if anyone was a clutch hitter, Ortiz was. That really wasn't what 60 Minutes conveyed.
I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I inhabit, every single network fails to accommodate sports into their schedules.
I, too, was disappointed with the final play by Davidson. In that situation, I push the ball quickly upcourt (rather than walk it up) and run my normal offense, but with an eye on the clock.
I think it's more that either he or the Davidson coach (or both) should have realized during that timeout that there was no way Kansas was going to let Curry take that last shot, come hell or high water.
I think he wrote that there was no evidence that clutch hitting existed and is now fighting against the notion that this lack of evidence means it absolutely doesn't exist. He holds out that it may, in fact, exist, but we haven't discovered the right tool yet to measure it. Is that about right?
I'm not trying to be critical so much as figuring out the "mistake" if there was one. The quote points one out: KU was surrendering the two pointer. Davidson essentially decided that Curry would take a 3 pointer, no matter what. Clearly that was optimum, but no way was KU giving that up. He could have dished early and had a teammate take a relatively open three or gotten a really good two, all with time on the clock. And, yes, that is really easy to say in hindsight or when you're not on the floor. But I also think the way KU had been defending him made it really, really, really unlikely Curry could get a 3point shot off and Davidson should've known that during the timeout.
If we split up ARod's career into 42 samples of 200 PA each, each sample made up of ten random 3-7 game stretches, would a sample of .279/.361/.483 stand out in any way?
I still maintain that Curry throwing up a heavily contested shot would have given the Wildcats better odds than anyone else shooting, even if it's Sanders with an open layup.
Yes, insofar as I once played pickup basketball with Ricky Calloway.
I think they recognize that going to KU is an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
GO KSU!
Actually, I think it might because he said that what they were trying to teach him he would only take and use in relation to baseball.
Incidentally, no one would be happier than Bill that a discussion about him would be completely derailed to talk about a KU basketball game.
That's how I understand the "Underestimating The Fog" essay. Alot of baseball studies trying to find a skill look at y-t-y correlation of stats. As I understand it though, there's too much noise in the data in many instances which means that absence of evidence in these studies doesn't mean evidence of absence.
FOX usually has a postgame show after football (The OT) that runs until 8 Eastern.
FOX is good at it. I've never noticed the other networks to have much problem having their prime time programming start on time after a golfing, NBA or NASCAR event.
I'll add a caveat about my above statement on Davidson having an easy two. While its true KU probably was focusing so much on Curry shooting a three, that they were very vulnerable to allowing a two, its also a big risk because KU's athleticism is so good that they could get back on defend a two.
However, I think it also increases the chances of a foul situation, which I think Davidson would have done well in.
Its easy to say in hindsight. Obviously at the time you want the ball in the hands of the best player on the court which was Curry.
My main point is that I liked the call to put the ball immediately in Curry's hands. Someone said they should have run their normal offense, which consists of players who are absolutely no threat to shoot holding the ball beyond the arc and waiting for Curry to come off of screens. It hadn't been working all night and I think it was a great call to have Curry bring the ball up.
You can make the case that they should have gone for the wide open layup (wow, I can't believe I'm about to argue against this). My brother spent the entirety of the final time out screaming, "One shot for the final four!" and I can't really blame McKillop for going for it.
After any football, baseball, or college basketball game, it seems all networks don't properly allow for time.
That is, there are some great hitters who have a history, or at least a reputation, of faltering in big spots.
I think A-Rod's case is a better example of the bolded bit than the overall point, so it's my fault for obfuscating my own point by bringing him up. A-Rod's unclutch rep was generated by his two utterly dismal playoff performances in 2005 and 2006. Last year didn't help; despite not being awful, he wasn't nearly as good as he was during the regular season either. But all of that tends to ignore the fact that he was a veritable postseason monster up until 2005. It's a mixed bag.
I don't view A-Rod as being particularly good or bad in the clutch, but I do think his struggles in the 2005 postseason got into his head come playoff time in 2006. He was absolutely miserable in that Detroit series, and I don't think that was just random. That said, I must reiterate that I don't believe that was an example of player who is, intrinsically, unclutch. I believe that was an example of an excellent player going through a rough stretch mentally and choking badly as a result.
So, as more general clarification, I find the idea of a player choking to be far more believable than the idea of a player being clutch. I have difficulty envisioning a mechanic by which a player may will himself better, i.e. "rise to the occasion" or "feed off the intensity" etc. A player collapsing under pressure, though, is a lot easier for me to understand.
He was the first to simply go through the game records and track how many bases were stolen off any given catcher.
Actually, given the way the information was arranged back then, the best he could do was stolen bases per games started.
One of the earliest example of his actually checking whether conventional wisdom is correct.
This is fair to consider. I believe it was Sanders (fairly certain, although aside from Curry I don't know the Davidson players by their face) who at one point was wide open at the top of the key (the guy who was guarding Sanders was 'showing' on the screen and fell down). Even if Sanders got the ball, he still would've needed to get to the rim for the lay-up/dunk, and I'd bet a Kansas defender would've been there to hack the hell out of him -- and isn't Sanders basically a 50% free throw shooter? Is that really better than the shot they got from Richards?
I just don't think you can 'blame' (I'm using that loosely here -- it's tough to criticize in such a hectic situation) Curry for giving up the ball. As kevin said, KU had him completely covered -- Davidson ran at least two or three separate screens for him and Kansas defended those screens about as well as possible, absolutely blanketing Curry -- so he gave the ball up to an open teammate who got a relatively decent look (albeit from a few feet beyond the arc).
It was without a doubt the best game of a weekend chalked full of blowouts, and ranks up there amongst the best games of the tourney (right up there with Marquette/Stanford -- awesome game, even if (I'm a Marquette student) it was the most heartbreaking sporting event of my lifetime). That being said, I have epic expectations for next weekend. When Memphis actually plays defense, they can hang with anyone. UNC looks unstoppable and both UCLA and Kansas are talented as hell.
Or, to drop the metaphor, if "clutchiness" is hidden in the noise, it may exist but it's too small a factor to matter. There may be a mathematical distinction between "doesn't exist" and "can't be detected," but there's no <u>practical</u> distinction.
It's not easy for me to understand how a player who "collapses under pressure" makes it to the majors in the first place (let alone, in the ARod example, becomes one of the greatest players ever to play the game).
Bonds is a good example. For years people would talk about how he "couldn't" hit in the postseason. Then after the 2002 playoffs, nobody talked about it anymore.
Peyton Manning shows that this idiocy is not limited to baseball. He couldn't win the big one. Until he could.
Well now, I'm convinced. I'm going to start a steroids regimen tomorrow. There is clearly nothing they can't accomplish!
Randy Johnson used to be a playoff choker. Until he wasn't.
Did you miss the 1992 NLCS?
Randy Johnson used to be a playoff choker. Until he wasn't.
This is where the noise comes in. Maybe clutch ability is something a player can develop as he matures or lose as he ages. It seems a hoplessly complicated weave. All I know is I'm convinced Marco Scutaro has some kind of walk-off hit ability. Scooter is freakin uncanny in those situations. (And no, I'm not going to look up the stats to dispel this myth that may exist in my own mind. I like the myth.)
Kenny Rogers is a great recent example: 23 scoreless innings in the 2006 playoffs, including a huge game against the team he was supposed to choke against, the Yankees. (Although people may have varying views on whether the foreign substance issue diminishes that a bit.)
When it comes to using the playoffs to measure clutchiness, the extremely small sample size means it is ALL noise.
And not liking the tournament because of Vitale is a pretty stupid argument, since he doesn't even work for CBS. If you don't like Vitale, don't turn on ESPN.
People sometimes think that if a player doesn't perform exceptionally well in clutch situations for his entire career, he's not a clutch hitter. For about three years or so, Ortiz's performance in certain types of situations was insane. Its possible that it was random chance, noise, but I don't believe it was the case, and you'll never convince me to change my mind. He did not perform especially well last year in the same types of situations - nevertheless, I believe Ortiz is a great example of someone who was a great clutch hitter for a few years.
People freeze up under pressure. It's happened to me.
Amateurs freeze up all the time. In general, if you're the kind of person who is going to freeze up under pressure on a baseball diamond, chances are you're not going to make in the majors at all, IMO. There are probably a couple of exceptions, but only a couple.
It kind of makes me think of Josh Shipp, to bring this back to college basketball. Shipp's been in a huge shooting slump the second part of this season, and he's passing up a lot of catch and shoot jumpers, and waiting for wide open looks, and I think it's hurting him. It's a little counterintuitive, but I think on those open looks, he thinks about the shot, and the consequences of missing, and he subsequently has performed poorly. But against WKU the other night, with the clock winding down, he cans a circus three, that was mostly luck, but he probably benefited from being forced to take it. If he could get back to the gunner mentality, I think he'd be OK again (he also needs to start getting back to his mid-range and slashing game, but that's another argument).
And there is the single sentence that summarizes the greatness of Bill James.
That does not make sense to me. The pressure involved in a Major League game, with 45,000 fans screaming and lightbulbs going off is totally different from anything else in baseball. You think playing in college or the minors prepares you for. There is no process in the lower levels to weed out those who would choke under Major League circumstances. This also assumes that no personal issues arise between the time they work their way up to the bigs and the time they fold in a clutch situation. Any number of things in a young man's life can effect his ability to deal with pressure.
In my experience, the difference between playing in front of 30 people and 300 is very noticeable, I can't imagine what 30,000 is like. What's more, the guys who have actually played the game on the Major League level believe in clutch and unclutch players, so you can't really play the "you never played Major League Baseball" card.
I don't disagree that Pearl shouldn't have taped the conversation, but once the corruption had been exposed it amazed me how quickly the college sports organization closed ranks, stuck their fingers in their ears, and starting humming loudly. I love college basketball and football, but man, the whole thing is a fraud. It just is. And really, even that doesn't bother me. It's the posture of moral superiority college football and basketball coaches ape that really bugs me. It's the same thing that irritates me about politicians. I miss Jerry Tarkanian. That guy gave no illusion he was the savior of youth or some moral compass for the community.
Anyway, all of this isn't a big deal. I have no idea why I'm even harping on it.
The one issue with the play is that they had Curry on the ball. Richards is a hell of a ball handler, and he's stronger and may be a better finisher (he is stronger than Curry.) He is a very good decision and is always looking to find Curry. They may have been better off putting the ball in his hands, running him off a screen, letting him turn the corner and see if he could either get to the rack or (more likely) finding Curry. The best argument for letting Curry handle the ball, as I see it, is that its harder to double a guy from the middle of the floor, whereas if you were running him off screens you could just switch everything and try and stay in front of him. But at the same time, if that is your goal, you don't really want to give him a ball screen because you have to know KU is going to hedge it big time, especially when the guy setting the screen isn't much of a threat.
Yes, but by that measure, ALL situations at the major league level are pressure situations. So what you're arguing here is that there's a creature that can withstand the enormous, soul-crushing pressure of playing in The Show, but you add just a bit more pressure and they crumble. You're asking for a hell of a fine-tuned ability to withstand pressure situations.
The only thing that would have made more sense would have been for him to drive, and either go to basket, or draw and dish and send it to overtime, but I think in that situation, with their one pretty good player having fouled out, you have to try to win it in regulation.
Not really. The difference between the crowd in the first inning of a game and in the ninth inning in close game during a big AB is very clear to any one watching.
So what you're arguing here is that there's a creature that can withstand the enormous, soul-crushing pressure of playing in The Show, but you add just a bit more pressure and they crumble. You're asking for a hell of a fine-tuned ability to withstand pressure situations.
There are lots of players who have the physical tools to play at the AA level but simply can't cut it against Major League competition. Some guys have just enough stuff to make it as a LOOGY but would be bombed as a starter. Some guys can be kill righthanded pitching, but can never hit better than .200 against lefties. There are situation specific physical ceilings throughout baseball. Why shouldn't there be physcological ceilings as well?
And perhaps Rafael Belliard was a slugger who just had personal issues arise between the time he walked out of the on deck circle and the time he reached the plate. Once you posit magic green elves that can make effects come and go at will, you're out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.
Yes, but, I don't care how much of a choker someone is, after playing in front of "45,000 fans screaming and lightbulbs going off" enough times and you will habituate to it.
Well think about:
a 22 year old baseball player who knows that iof this year he doesn;t get out of the FSL he never will land his dream is over...
versus the 30 year old vet who is financially set for life, and gee it would really suck if he blew another save and lost the closer job...
... and then you'll realize that your analogy comparing a 22 year old with a 38 year old lawyer having a midlife crisis holds no water.
I think there are plenty of reasons to think that.
Consider that if you screw up in the World Series, you don't get a ring; if you screw up in college or the minors, you don't get a career.
That's not really true. If you screw up a big play in college or the minors, chances are no one outside of a few hundred people are watching, everyone will forget for the most part anyway because those games don't mean much.
The individual stakes are higher at lower levels.
Time and time again you hear ballplayers say how much a ring means to them. Professional athletes are competitors, and being part of the best team in the world seems to have a lot of value to them. Even ignoring all the environmental differences between the two, which I believe to be a huge factor, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that winning a AA championship is more important to a ballplayer than a World Series ring. We aren't talking about overall performance, we're talking about the performance of some players in very specific situations. Maybe to some guy scraping to get buy the AA game is huge, but to future Major Leaguers, with their eyes set on the show, I doubt it's more than a drop in the bucket. I played with guys in football, basketball, and baseball who went on to play at much higher levels and the big games for those us who topped out in high school or college never seemed to mean as much to them. Heath Benedict, RIP, was never nervous to go out and play Blair. Neither was Fernando Perez when we went to play Steinart.
Once you posit magic green elves that can make effects come and go at will, you're out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.
You can't prove it exists or doesn't exist, so you choose to not believe in it. I have no problem going on faith.
Yes, but, I don't care how much of a choker someone is, after playing in front of "45,000 fans screaming and lightbulbs going off" enough times and you will habituate to it.
I think you'll find that that is generally true. I think specific cases can arise where a trade or a contract or playing in front of a hometown crowd can alter a normally sound player's clutchiness, but in general, yes I agree that maturity will generally iron out any unclutch wrinkles in a player's career. But there are also guys who never mature and will choke until they're 95 and playing Canasta (Benitez).
Well, clearly you don't watch the game with same experienced eye as kevin.
Hasn't he already established that he knows more hoops than you?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main