BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: N.Y. Post: Kernan: JETER SHAKES OFF MEAN MACHINE’S SILLY STUDY (RR)

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 21, 2008

N.Y. Post: Kernan: JETER SHAKES OFF MEAN MACHINE’S SILLY STUDY (RR)

Derek Jeter arrived at his 16th New York Yankees spring training yesterday labeled the worst shortstop in the majors by some statistical braniacs over at Penn.

“Maybe it was a computer glitch,” the three-time Gold Glove winner said of the report. But Jeter just didn’t laugh this one off. He defended himself, saying, “Every [shortstop] doesn’t stay in the same spot, everyone doesn’t have the same pitching. Everyone doesn’t have the same hitters running, it’s impossible to do that.”

Jeter, 33, pointed out you can get the exact same ground ball off the exact same pitcher and there could be an average runner or there could be Ichiro running. “How can you compute that?” he asked.

You can’t. That’s one reason Yankees senior advisor Gene Michael was infuriated by the University of Pennsylvania report. “Something like that is a disgrace,” the scout said. “It made me ill when I read that article. First of all, what pitching staff was out there? Each team has a different staff. Derek doesn’t really have a sinkerball pitching staff whereas other shortstops, you sit behind certain pitchers, you’re going to get a lot of ground balls.

“You simply can’t do that by those charts, that’s a bunch of baloney,” Michael added. “It’s disgraceful. You have to use a scout’s eye to determine range.”

Gee…I remember when Gene Michael was the brains of the outfit. Sad.

Repoz Posted: February 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM | 66 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: fantasy baseball, sabermetrics, yankees

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. The Kids Are Enright (1k5v3L)

Posted: February 21, 2008 at 03:02 PM (#2696426)

Oh please. I, like most people here, have seen enough games to know Jeter's defense sucks. "Past a diving Jeter" is not a soccer movie.

2. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 03:26 PM (#2696438)

Isn't this a repeat?

Seems like those exact quotations from Jeter were used in Tom Tango's With or without article from the Hardball Times Annual.

3. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: February 21, 2008 at 03:52 PM (#2696459)

Jeter will get his revenge when the "Shortstops with the calmest eyes" study is released.

4. Charter Member of the Jesus Melendez Fanclub Posted: February 21, 2008 at 05:52 PM (#2696551)

This is so stupid, because the same story has been written five times before. The reporter finds some stat or study that says Jeter sucks defensively, tells Jeter, Jeter says he doesn't think he sucks. I guess the outraged Stick is a new twist.

5. Charter Member of the Jesus Melendez Fanclub Posted: February 21, 2008 at 05:57 PM (#2696556)

Derek Jeter arrived at his 16th New York Yankees spring training yesterday labeled the worst hitter in the majors by some statistical braniacs over at Penn.

“Maybe it was a computer glitch,” the two-time Silver Slugger winner said of the report. But Jeter just didn’t laugh this one off. He defended himself, saying, "Every [batter] doesn’t play in the same park, everyone doesn’t face the same pitching. Everyone doesn’t have the same runners on base, it’s impossible to do that.”

Jeter, 33, pointed out you can hit the exact same ground ball off the exact same pitcher and there could be an average fielder or there could be Adrian Beltre fielding. “How can you compute that?” he asked.

You can’t. That’s one reason Yankees senior advisor Gene Michael was infuriated by the University of Pennsylvania report. “Something like that is a disgrace,” the scout said. “It made me ill when I read that article. First of all, what pitching staff was out there? Each team has a different staff. Derek doesn’t really face weak pitching staffs whereas other batters, you face certain pitchers, you’re going to get a lot of meatballs."

6. Famous Original Joe C Posted: February 21, 2008 at 05:58 PM (#2696558)

Its true, though, that it's unfair that Jeter has to make all of his plays with Ichiro running.

7. Win one for Agrippa (haplo53) Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:06 PM (#2696565)

Go Quakers!

8. TVerik Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:09 PM (#2696567)

Why the handwringing? What was a Yankee insider to say?

"Yup. You got us. That guy sucks at defense and the people who work so hard under me are the ones who continue to run him out there. Those guys suck too."

9. Sandlapper Spike Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:11 PM (#2696568)

Well, honestly, what did you expect Michael to say?

Edit: What TVerik said.

10. SoSH U at work Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:12 PM (#2696571)

Why the handwringing? What was a Yankee insider to say?

A simple "we don't agree with the study" or "our own numbers say otherwise" would suffice. The bit about becoming physically ill over the contents of a term paper was a little over-the-top, considering it's actually, you know, true.

11. WillYoung Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:15 PM (#2696575)

Just for fun, I thought I would look to see how many times Ichiro! could have affected the Captain last year.

Number of PAs in which Ichiro! was on first base: 17
Number of those PAs in which there was a runner on 2nd base blocking him: 3 (including 2 6-4-3 DPs)
Results with 2nd base open: homerun, 2 doubles (one was a GB to LF, not sure if that was a glaring Jeter misplay or down the line or something), flyout (2x), 2 forceouts 6-4, 2 GIDPs, Ichiro! stealing second (2x), IF single to ARod, 1b on GB to LF (no idea if it was a "pasta"), caught stealing

So there are 2 questionable plays out of 17 with Ichiro! on base. No idea if that is high or low.

12. Russ Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:32 PM (#2696599)

The bit about becoming physically ill over the contents of a term paper was a little over-the-top

Calling it a term paper is a bit disingenuous... I know the author fairly well and we talked at length about his models at a recent conference. Shane is a pretty serious statistician who just happens to like baseball (even if you can't tell from the picture on his webpage).

13. JPWF13

Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:39 PM (#2696609)

You have to use a scout’s eye to determine range.”

well then have a few scouts watch Jeter and other MLB shortstops and tell you how Jeter's range compares.

Just watch any Yankee Game, Jeter was REALLY REALLY bad last year.
He still does some things well, he has a good accurate arm, he has good hands and he still tracks pop ups really well (another reason why he would have converted to an OF quite easily)- he just doesn't get to ground balls that most other MLB Shortstops do.

I've notice din recent years that teams have seemingly been more reluctant than they used to be in benching or moving veteran SSs who can't really play the position anymore.
It was pretty hysterical that Detroit got Renteria so they could move Guillen- Guillen's range was unacceptable? Renteria's range by 2009 (if not sooner) will be as bad as Guillen's was in 2007. Dombrowski's one of the better GMs around- but that move is perplexing- ok no it's not- they are going for it in 2008 (legitimately, unlike say Seattle...)

14. Daryn Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:39 PM (#2696610)

Just for fun, I thought I would look to see how many times Ichiro! could have affected the Captain last year.

Jeter was referring to Ichiro as a batter-runner.

15. SoSH U at work Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:45 PM (#2696614)

Calling it a term paper is a bit disingenuous... I know the author fairly well and we talked at length about his models at a recent conference. Shane is a pretty serious statistician who just happens to like baseball (even if you can't tell from the picture on his webpage).

I wasn't trying to diminish the quality of the work Russ. I just found Stick's stated reaction to a statistical study somewhat ridiculous.

16. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 06:55 PM (#2696627)

I've notice din recent years that teams have seemingly been more reluctant than they used to be in benching or moving veteran SSs who can't really play the position anymore.

Maybe its easier to get a good player at SS if you accept below average defense for above average offensive production rather than trying to find a defensive standout who won't kill you with the bat.

17. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2696635)

2 doubles (one was a GB to LF, not sure if that was a glaring Jeter misplay or down the line or something)

Virtually every groundball extrabase hit goes down the line. I can't remember if it's 99% or 99.9%, but I did study this for the years retrosheet has project scoresheet hit locations. It's enough that in my TotalZone system I can be confidant in charging groundball XBH to completely to either the 1B or 3B.

Jeter can't misplay a groundball bad enough to turn it into a double, if it goes through the SS area and becomes a double, the blame lies with the outfielder. The only thing Jeter could do to put a runner on 2B is throw the ball away, but that would be scored a single + error or just a straight error.

Also, calling Jeter the worst shortstop in the majors is going a bit too far. He's a better defensive shortstop than a lot of people who play the position part-time, like Mark Loretta, or who played briefly as regulars and failed, like Russ Adams. He just happens to be the worst defensive shortstop among those who were good enough all around players to keep the regular job for over 10 years.

18. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:12 PM (#2696648)

You have to use a scout’s eye to determine range.”

The funny thing about this is that people noticed Jeter's lack of defensive skill visually long before people starting publishing statistical analyses to prove it. Jeter has always looked terrible (except on popups behind him, where he's great).

19. TVerik Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:17 PM (#2696652)

Maybe its easier to get a good player at SS if you accept below average defense for above average offensive production rather than trying to find a defensive standout who won't kill you with the bat.

Excellent point. To restate: as the position starts to carry offensive expectations (post-Ripken), the traditional emphasis on defense at SS diminishes.

20. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:26 PM (#2696663)

Jeter has always looked terrible (except on popups behind him, where he's great).

and also:

1. flipping the ball backhand to the catcher

2. diving into the stands after he's caught a popup

he's great at those, too, don't forget

21. Chris Dial Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:29 PM (#2696669)

22. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:32 PM (#2696673)

The funny thing about this is that people noticed Jeter's lack of defensive skill visually long before people starting publishing statistical analyses to prove it.

Are you sure? Analyst looking at Jeter's D on this site goes back to at least 2001. Were people really talking about Jeter's lack of range during the championship run? I'll have to look at the STATS Diamond Chronicles when I get a chance.

23. AJM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:35 PM (#2696678)

Jeter was referring to Ichiro as a batter-runner.

Hmm, does Ichiro hit a lot of 15 hoppers near shortstop?

24. Chris Dial Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:36 PM (#2696679)

Were people really talking about Jeter's lack of range during the championship run? I'll have to look at the STATS Diamond Chronicles when I get a chance.

try rsb in Google Groups.

25. Rich Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:40 PM (#2696686)

So Jeter doesn't even know what his ZR was last season?

I don't envy the person in the Yankees' organization who will ultmately have to sit down with Jeter and explain the facts of life to him. Maybe it should be the entire pitching staff.

26. Srul Itza Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#2696689)

Analyst looking at Jeter's D on this site goes back to at least 2001.

Neyer was talking about it long before then.

27. CiC Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:42 PM (#2696693)

The geeks are offended!!!

They've got bar graphs charting their displeasure!!!

28. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 07:53 PM (#2696705)

The funny thing about this is that people noticed Jeter's lack of defensive skill visually long before people starting publishing statistical analyses to prove it.

This isn't true. Bpro has been talking about how bad Jeter's defense is since 1997. This is part of Bpro's player comment on him from their book released before the 98 season:

We’ve been very critical of his defense, so we should note that his range factor and Defensive Index are both average to slightly below. He didn’t make the great leap forward offensively, but improved marginally in most areas while staying healthy. He’ll be a reasonable MVP candidate a couple of times in the next six years.

And that was when PBP metrics were rating him as above average.

Jeter has always looked terrible

This isn't true either.

29. villageidiom Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:10 PM (#2696714)

Why the handwringing? What was a Yankee insider to say?

(chuckle) I'm pretty sure having Derek Jeter as our shortstop has served us well in the last decade or so.

Look, our team has a few question marks. Our job here is to keep the number of question marks low, and to deal with the biggest ones first. From where I sit, other teams have a lot more question marks than we do; and of the ones we have, Derek Jeter's defense ranks a little bit north of "Do we put too much salt on the popcorn?" in the priority list.

- - - - - -

Was that so hard to do?

30. The Good Face Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:18 PM (#2696719)

The funny thing about this is that people noticed Jeter's lack of defensive skill visually long before people starting publishing statistical analyses to prove it. Jeter has always looked terrible (except on popups behind him, where he's great).

I disagree with the part about him looking terrible. Jeter is fluid and graceful, with a strong arm, sure hands, and a willingness to dive for (and miss) ground balls. His body language is confident and he seems blissfully unaware of his shortcomings. Plus there were all those jump throws from the hole! I could easily see how a person who only watched him for a game or two might think he was a good defender. Only when you watch a bunch of Yankee games a year, and notice that the opposing SS almost invariably gets to balls that go past Jeter for hits, do you realize the awful truth.

31. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:27 PM (#2696724)

And that was when PBP metrics were rating him as above average.

What PBP measure had Jeter above average in 1996-1997? I think his zone rating was about average.

Chris, good suggestion in #28. That's a real productivity killer.

Still, I'm wondering how much of the "Jeter can't field" line of thought comes from people watching him or from people using stats. If I recall Rob Neyer's case was made with range factor, a classic case of using the wrong tool to come to the right conclusion.

Was there a time when the numbers did show Jeter to be good, but some people had their doubts? I recent example of that would be Chris Shelton or Kevin Millar - some PBP stats have rated them very well at 1B in recent years, but observation says the stats are misleading.

I think in Jeter's case it was:

1) He came up and instantly was considered a great shortstop
2) the numbers didn't back this up
3) a few people thought he was overrated
4) the numbers got worse
5) Pasta Diving Jeter! became part of our sub-culture

I could spend hours searching rec sport archives to try and see if what was written back matches up with my theory, or if I've got it all wrong. Most likely though, I'll get distracted and move onto something else.

32. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:31 PM (#2696727)

What PBP measure had Jeter above average in 1996-1997?

ZR had him at +2 or something in 97, I don't have access to SG's spreadsheet at work, but I'm like 95% positive that he was above average in 97. UZR had him above average in 97 last I saw, but MGL changes the formula so maybe that has changed.

33. Chris Dial Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:33 PM (#2696728)

To Cowboy's point, we've *always* had PBP data for Jeter's career. So the stats were always available.

34. SG Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:35 PM (#2696730)

Jeter's runs saved per season using zone rating:

1995: -3
1996: -13
1997: -2
1998: 4
1999: 0
2000: -13
2001: -18
2002: -16
2003: -14
2004: 3
2005: 1
2006: -5
2007: -20

35. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:37 PM (#2696731)

Jeter's runs saved per season using zone rating:

Well, I was wrong, SG have those numbers changed? They seem to be a little different then the numbers I've seen before, but it's (highly) possible I'm misremembering.

36. SG Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2696734)

CP, I haven't changed them except for adding in 2007.

37. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:43 PM (#2696736)

Thanks SG, I always put too much faith in a memory that has been destroyed by football, drugs and alcohol.

38. villageidiom Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:44 PM (#2696737)

I think in Jeter's case it was:

1) He came up and instantly was considered a great shortstop
2) the numbers didn't back this up
3) a few people thought he was overrated
4) the numbers got worse
5) Pasta Diving Jeter! became part of our sub-culture

I think the major wedge point was between 2 and 3, when people with numbers were first shouted down by the "no, he's clearly the best, and if you watched him play every day instead of playing with your damn spreadsheet you'd know it, fool" crowd. It wasn't so much that there was slight disagreement: the numbers folks thought he was among the worst; other folks thought he was among the best. Mike Emeigh was about the only one staking out a middle ground for a while there.

39. standuptriple Posted: February 21, 2008 at 08:48 PM (#2696744)

...people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.

40. Dag Nabbit apealing [sic] his own check swing Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:09 PM (#2696773)

Nice chart, SG.

I notice that Jeter's ZR got a lot better when Pettitte left and a lot worse when he came back. Since Pettitte's a groundball heavy lefty, there should be more going to that 3B/SS hole.

41. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#2696775)

Never ascribe external reasons for phenomena that can be adequately and completely ascribed to internal ones.

Good one old man, you sure do make up for your many shortcomings with your excellent sense of humor.

42. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:17 PM (#2696786)

Strange in 2 ways:

1. Pettite on the mound means more RHB. Grounders hit by righties are more likely to turn into outs than those by left batters.

2. Groundball specialists tend to produce more easily fielded groundballs than flyball pitchers.

SG, have you looked at how Jeter did in Pettite's starts?

43. Dag Nabbit apealing [sic] his own check swing Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:24 PM (#2696792)

Or I could be wrong - Pettitte was a far more extreme groundballer in the 1990s than the 2000s. And Wang is much more of a groundballer than Pettitte - sure he's a righty, but batters hit 483 GB off of him in 2006. Pettitte's all-time high is about 100 lower than that.

44. Chris Dial Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:30 PM (#2696799)

SG, have you looked at how Jeter did in Pettite's starts?

I suspect more of those chances went to second base or third base.

45. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:34 PM (#2696806)

I see from SG's site that Jeter had an .810 ZR in Wang's starts, .753 with others.

46. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: February 21, 2008 at 09:44 PM (#2696821)

The geeks are offended!!!

They've got bar graphs charting their displeasure!!!

best post in this whole thread!

47. Don't want the truth; just wanna see some dingers Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM (#2696837)

JETER SHAKES OFF MEAN MACHINE’S SILLY STUDY

Maybe Scooby and the gang should stick to crime-fightng.

48. SG Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:08 PM (#2696850)

SG, have you looked at how Jeter did in Pettite's starts?

Nope, I didn't, but I think that's a good idea.

49. Don't want the truth; just wanna see some dingers Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM (#2696853)

JETER SHAKES OFF MEAN MACHINE’S SILLY STUDY

Maybe Scooby and the gang should stick to crime-fightng.

50. SoSH U at work Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM (#2696858)

Maybe Scooby and the gang should stick to crime-fightng.

You're thinking the Mystery Machine. This study was actually done by the football-playing cons in The Longest Yard.

BTW: What the hell does the headline mean?

51. SG Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:39 PM (#2696891)

In games started by Pettitte, Jeter made 8 plays fewer than average, 133 chances, 100 plays made, ZR of .752.

52. As foretold by the prophesy (JFSE) Posted: February 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM (#2696905)

I don't see what the issue is. He's a great shortstop. He does everything well except fielding ground balls.

Also, comparing him defensively to failed shortstops like Loretta isn't a very good point. He's a better shortstop than most left fielders, designated hitters, umpires, bench coaches and drunken fans too.

53. AROM Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM (#2696910)

Also, comparing him defensively to failed shortstops like Loretta isn't a very good point.

Loretta actually played shortstop for a major league team last year, unlike Manny Ramirez, Frank Thomas, Doug Eddings, Don Zimmer, and myself. Jeter is a better fielder than Loretta. He's only allowed to rack up a huge total of runs below average because he is such a good all around player, but there are shortstops in the major leagues who have less fielding ability than Jeter.

54. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM (#2696911)

I remember first seeing Jeter play and immediately knowing he wasn't that good defensively. I couldn't fathom how anyone could watch him and think otherwise. I made fun of New Yorkers because of that, I mean the only good defensive shortstop they have seen in the past 30 years has been Rey Ordonez, and outside of his first couple of years he really wasn't that good, his defense didn't age well so in comparison Jeter may not have looked that bad when people were acting like they had an Ozzie Smith level defender to compare him too.

55. Sexy Lizard Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM (#2696913)

FWIW, the BBC Radio 4's science news show Leading Edge had a brief interview with Shane Jensen in today's episode (which you can listen to at the web site). No real news from it, but it's interesting that Radio 4 would find it one of the things from the American Association of the Advancement of Science worth mentioning.

56. The cushions are crowded for Edmundo

Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#2696923)

Also, comparing him defensively to failed shortstops like Loretta isn't a very good point. He's a better shortstop than most left fielders, designated hitters, umpires, bench coaches and drunken fans too.
Since you left off sober fans, can we infer that you think that Jeter is worse than a sober fan? :)

I don't see what the issue is. He's a great shortstop. He does everything well except fielding ground balls.
That is a nice way to express the true state of affairs but it is far too reasoned. Somehow a particular brand of Jeterphiles can't see that and must defend their idol against all slights.

57. baudib Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:17 PM (#2696934)

We used to talk about Jeter's bad defense on the AOL saber board I started in the 1990s.

58. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 21, 2008 at 11:34 PM (#2696955)

Keith Law had a comment in his chat today, which I'm heavily paraphrasing: "Jeter would be a good test if you're thinking about hiring someone as a scout. Tell him to watch Jeter for a few days, and if he doesn't think he stinks, don't hire the guy." He wasn't nearly that harsh, but that was the gist.

59. Cowboy Popup Posted: February 22, 2008 at 12:01 AM (#2696981)

Let's convert those 33 hits from defense to offense and take those 33 hits away from Jeter's offensive numbers instead. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt and make all of them singles. Instead of the lousy-fielding .320/.388/.452 player he was, now he's an average defensive SS that hits .271/.341/.400.

Jack Wilson was an average SS last year and outhit Jeter by a considerable margin (.296/.350/.440). David Eckstein basically hit that (.309/.356/.382). Orlando Cabrera was a better than average fielder last year and hit .301/.345/.397.
None of these players made the AS team last year. The Yankees have not quite the equivalent of Eckstein/Cabrera playing SS. And this is leaving out the other consideration of the extra wear and tear Jeter lays on the bullpen with his bad defense. Factor that in, and Jeter is a below average starting SS.

Part of the yankees lack of perspective about the true value of Jeter is costing them valuable time in failing to correct a problem that is keeping them from getting over the hump and finally getting at least a little return on the exorbitant payroll expenditure they have been outlaying.

I realize I'm using ZR to generate this rationale because they are the only ones I have readily accessible and would appreciate input from Dial or David Pinto or someone else who has Jeter's range numbers but I'm willing to wager the end result will be roughly the same.

Man, you might be the smartest person I've ever encountered or even heard of.

60. SG Posted: February 22, 2008 at 12:04 AM (#2696984)

Jeter last year had 607 total chances and had a ZR of .765. An average SS had about an .820 ZR. That means that Jeter allowed about 33 balls to become hits

kevin, total chances (PO + A + E) should not be used with zone rating. Jeter had 477 fieldable chances as defined by Stats Inc for zone rating (plays that are converted into outs at least 50% of the time). He made 365 plays. An average AL SS had a ZR of .821 and would have made 392 plays. So Jeter made 27 fewer plays, not 33. According to the Notorious Chris Dial's work, an average play not made at short is worth .753 runs.

Jeter's defense made his overall contributions last year just about average if you believe zone rating, so your larger point is probably right, but only for 2007. I've got him projected at around -10 defensively for 2008, which means he's a win or so above average overall if he repeats his offense. I know advanced metrics would project him to be worse most likely, but I use what I have access to.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, February 21, 2008

N.Y. Post: Kernan: JETER SHAKES OFF MEAN MACHINE’S SILLY STUDY (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics