Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Pressure on the Cards? Hard to believe, Harry | Main | Thursday night: Should Mayberry get the nod? »

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Comments

Wow. Scanning that old game thread. Found this....


"I'd like to see Valdez pitch.

Posted by: Old Phan | Wednesday, October 06, 2010 at 06:58 PM"

This is bad ju-ju.

Everything is bad ju-ju right now.

The Phils are one game away from advancing to the NLCS. Things could be worse.

Cyclic, you know what they say-Strange things come to those who wait.

i'd officially like to welcome Stan Marsh to the Debbie Downer club.

(per Mr. Mackey from last night's South Park)

It really has been an awesome week and a half in baseball, in general.

With the way the season ended, and now there are three do-or-die game 5s in two days.

I can't wait to watch every last one of them. MLB must be loving this.

I fully plan on professing my manlove for Roy Halladay tomorrow night as much as I did 1 year ago.

This is good for the ratings, and MLB did a dance in the hallways when the Rays got eliminated.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/bryant-111005/theo-epstein-held-accountable-red-sox-collapse

On another note, a pretty good recap of just how terrible Epstein has been as a GM in his FA signings.

Perfect, because it's on Halladay. Regardless of what each of us thinks--chokers, not chokers, disappointing, underachievers, warm and fuzzy memories, greatest team ever, etc.--there's obviously more at stake than continuing this season. Win and the season continues, with the Phillies confident about getting to the World Series. The dream lives, and I'd bet on them to beat whoever is next. Lose on Friday, and the historical value of the entire era is diminished. It will be a bunch of first place finishes and one championship, over an inexperienced TB, something far less than the recent underachieving of Chipper Jones's ATL. We're going to see how big of a back Doc has.

Re: Utley's try for 3rd...I thought it was a big risk, but given the scenario I could see why Utley went for it.

And there were a couple of comments in the last thread that really tried to rewrite how it all played out:
1. Utley was not trying to go 1st to 3rd on a routine grounder, he was stealing 2nd and thought he could catch the Cards off guard and just keep going (a bit different that leaving 1st at the crack of the bat and trying to keep going to 3rd).
2. It was not a bad throw that brought Pujols off the bag, Pujols made a great decision to come off the bag as soon as he saw what Utley was trying to do (if he stays on the bag, there's a much better chance that Utley get's in there safe).

Utley was clearly trying to get something going and it didn't work out. Definitely not something that I would want to see happen too often, but I don't think the result (having a runner at 1st with one out vs. at 2nd with one out) was the worst thing in the world.

BAP: I'm glad we agree that anything can happen in a 5-game series or a single game, and that such a small sample tells you very little about a team as compared to, oh say, 162 games.

As for blame for why a team lost a single game, I have no problem with that. What's ridiculous are the over the top, sweeping generalizations and moronic analysis that you and numerous others are sure to provide if the Phillies lose that one game.

Dreamer: That's how I saw it too... if Pujols doesn't come off the bag, errant throw or otherwise, lthere's a good chance we're all talking up Utley's awesome play today...

Utley was expressing little confidence that the guys behind him could score him from 2B with 1 out. And who would know better?

But Pujols did come off the bag, and he knew exactly what he was doing.

TPOT - exactly. We'd have pages of posts commenting on Utley's "scrappy" base running.

Lorecore - If the Phillies lose it's on them for being outplayed. That doesn't support a laughable assertion that they're "chokers" based on one game.

MG - You say calling them chokers is proven by "the numbers," but that calling them "chokers" isn't objective.

Please explain.

Even the guys on MLB network agreed, 99% of first basemen don't make the play that Pujols made. Great try by Utley even though it didn't work out.

Phlipper - I see you are being thick-headed again. Performing on a particular task compare to other teams at the 10-20th percentile is really poor.

It would be a bizarre irony if this generation of Phillies would win their only World Series title with a starting staff of Hamels, Myers, Moyer, and Blanton, when in other years, they had far superior rotations. Hopefully it's not a reality we'll have to face.

I'm not backing off my prediction that the Phils win the World Series this year, though. I feel good about the team in game 5, even if the hitters have looked dreadful, even if I'm sure Carpenter is going to come back with a vengeance after his flop in game 2. The best pitcher in baseball will be on the mound in red pinstripes, and offensive slumps are made to be broken.

I thought Utley's play was terrible.

I'll take 1 out, runner at 2nd a thousand times over runner at 1st with 1 out.

Getting to third there just wasn't worth the risk.

performing poorly on something is not the same as choking; I'm guessing this is Phlipper's point

Another thing. Our running game has really turned to sh*t. D.Lopes was easily the biggest loss during the offseason.

That @BuschSquirrel twitter account linked by Drew is hilarious.

Fat: Agreed that I'm excited about the 3 Game 5s. Not so sure I agree that it has been a great week and a half of baseball. Anytime a series goes to the last game, it's obviously dramatic. But, as 5-game series go, these 3 have been pretty crappy. The vast majority of games have been thorougly lacking in drama -- notable exceptions being Games 3 of the Phillies-Cardinals and Yankees-Tigers series.

The next AB after Utley's out at third was a Howard fly out to the OF, which would have scored Utley had he been safe.

I think my favorite post from the no-no thread was something like "...but we could have had C____ L__..."

"99% of first basemen don't make the play that Pujols made."

Totally agree. That's why you don't do it.

"99% of first basemen don't make the play that Pujols made."

Well, that's obviously false. There's a reason people never attempt to do what Utley attempted to do. He has counting on the surprise factor and lots of luck, neither of which he got.

What on earth was so great about the Pujols play? He threw to a base to make an easy play. 99% of the first baseman DO make that play. Or at least 90%.

And Howard might not have flied out had Utley been on 2nd. That would have taken the defense out of its shift and could easily have produced a completely different hitting approach & a completely different outcome.

I realize he's St. Utley (even though he has been decidedly unsaintly for 2 straight years), but I can't believe there are posters defending that play.

I can't believe there are posters defending that play.

Surely there is room for reasonable people to disagree? There is an argument that it's a bad play because Pujols is facing that direction and the element of surprise is lost.

And 99% of 1B do not make that play. A full 3/3 of Ryan Howard, for instance, don't make that play. :)

@BAP: Either you have to amend your assertion that only game 3 in the Phillies-Cards series has been dramatic by adding "from the standpoint of a Phillies' fan," or I have to take issue with it.

If you are an impartial observer, you have to include game 2, where the Cards spotted the Phils an "insurmountable" 0-4 deficit with Cliff Lee on the mound and, somehow, came all the way back to win the game and alter the complexion of the series dramatically.

Do you agree?

b_a_p: Let it go. Even if no one defended that play we'd still be subject to the usual bullsh*t about how "everyone" on Beerleaguer blindly defends "everything" Utley does. Literacy rates are clearly plummeting. I suggest saving your words for those few outliers who are able to read & understand them.

Has there ever been a post season where 3 of the 4 NLDS went to 5 games?

Yeah, I think it was both a nice play, and a relatively no brainer play by Pujols. Of course you go for the out at 3b, and it was an easy out, b/c Utley should never have gone for it.

The Pence "out" at 2b is the one that REALLY gets me steamed.

Mainerob: I don't purport to speak for b_a_p, but I don't believe Lee's bad outing had more of an effect on this series than the Phillies' almost complete inability to score runs off of a mediocre starting pitcher in Game 4, or a mediocre bullpen in Games 2-4.

At any rate, the situation in which the Phillies currently find themselves is decidedly unpleasant.

Phlipper: when someone says a team choked, its means they ended up losing despite being in a very advantageous position earlier.

Don't try to implant some type of extra meaning into the word and spend 100 posts whining about it.

lorecore: "when someone says a team choked, its means they ended up losing despite being in a very advantageous position earlier."

In that case, every team in professional sports is a choke team because that happens in numerous games every season.

I hear you, GTown. However, I submit that the Cards gained a lot of confidence and mojo coming back on Lee and debunking the myth of invincibility of the fab 4. Recall that Halladay only gave the Cards a glimpse of "humanness" in the first inning of his start and then proceeded to pitch a perfect game 2-8.

What ifs are pointless, but I'll play that game for fun. If Cliff Lee pitches like Cliff Lee, the series would already be over.
I don't see how this is an unpleasant situation for the Phils. They have to win one game, at home with arguably the best pitcher in the league on the mound. As far as a baseball game goes, that's pretty damn pleasant.

The only way to win game 5 is Doc throw a shutout.

"At any rate, the situation in which the Phillies currently find themselves is decidedly unpleasant."

I disagree completely.

Halladay on the mound in a series-deciding game? I can't wait for the game to start. If you think this is unpleasant, why exactly do you follow the Phillies?

Cackalacky: It would be ironic but not unprecedented. The great teams of 1976-83 won one World Series. The 1980 team was a clear cut below the 1976-77 teams in terms of talent, but they got some breaks and timely hitting in the post-season. In fact, even the weakest team of the bunch (1983) went further in post-season that the best teams did.

Such are the vagaries of post-season.

Charlie doing his press conference. When asked if he's considering changing the lineup, he said "I think about it, but at the same time, when you look at our lineup and they're 0-4, there's not a lot of changing I can do." So basically, Charlie acknowledged that the offense has been poor.

Although he didn't mention the possibility of replacing guys. Not a lot he can do there, either, except that I really think it might be good to give Valdez the start over Polanco. Only because Polly's been so bad, Valdez can't be worse. Although Polly did finally have a single. Maybe he's on the verge of breaking out....

But Charlie is excited about baseball, isn't he? He said "You've got two talented teams," and "You can hit them out in BP and feel great, get in the game and go 0-for. You can have a pitcher get everyone out one game, can't get them out the next. If you can explain that to me, I'll listen." And "That's what makes baseball beautiful."

Well put, Clout, about the vagaries of playoff baseball. I believe it's mostly about the team, or teams, with momentum and self-confidence as they enter the playoffs. A great example is the Rockies of 07, who had that incredible winning streak in September and carried the momentum all the way to the WS. There was no team other than the Red Sox that was going to get in their way. The Phillies never knew what hit them and I contend that they also were quite content with getting past the regular season and into the playoffs.

I'm glad we're back to discussing that it's the hot teams that win, even after the hot Rays were first to be eliminated. And when the Cards lose it will be because there was another team that 'got in their way'.

For what it's worth, apparently the rest of the world isn't as pessimistic on BL. Just heard Joe and Evan on the Fan from NYC and they're fully expecting the Phils to win though it's not what they want. They're unhappy the Brewers-DBacks come on first tomorrow because they feel only the Brewers can beat the Phils and they don't want to have to pay attention to that game which they wouldn't have to do if the Phils were the first game and lost.

lorecore -

Losing 2 out of 3 games happens a lot in baseball.

I get that losing 2 out of 3 games, when the pressure is greater, means that a post-season 5-game series is different than your run of the mill 2 out of 3 games.

But this is a team with the best record in baseball, with a large % of players who have had a lot of post season success, including a WFC.

Calling them "chokers," based on the outcome of one game, or even losing 2 out of 3 games in a 5-game series, is beyond ridiculous. They won 2 out of the first 3 games in the series when the pressure was on.

We all know that there is a fair amount of random variability in the game of baseball. That's part of what makes it such an interesting game to watch. If they lose the next game, it's fair to say that they were outplayed by another team for one game. To say that they "choked," IMO, requires a more dramatic turn of events. Let's say something like they're ahead by four runs with two outs in the top of the ninth, and they lose because someone drops a pop fly or throws to wrong bases,etc., But even then, while you might say that certain players "choked," it seems a stretch to say that it is a team of "chokers" or that the team "choked."

Scoring more runs heading into the final game, and losing a reasonably close game after winning two out of three games in a five game series would not meet that bar, IMO.

Unless we see something extreme happen, playing relatively poorly and losing a final game after playing a team even for the first four games does not not imply what "choking" generally means - which is that a team failed to perform because of the pressure of the situation.

"If you are an impartial observer, you have to include game 2, where the Cards spotted the Phils an "insurmountable" 0-4 deficit with Cliff Lee on the mound and, somehow, came all the way back to win the game and alter the complexion of the series dramatically."

Sorry . . . you lost me as soon as you wrote the words, "If you are an impartial observer." To me, the only drama of that game was the drama of whether or not I was going to make it to the toilet before throwing up.

BAP has not enjoyed one moment of Phillies Baseball in his life.

Phlipper, it's my opinion that when a team is assembled with the explicit goal of winning a championship, and when star players flock to that team with the explicit goal of playing for a championship team, and the team turns out to be in fact good enough to win 102 games and put together some borderline historic numbers, then if that team is bumped off in the first round of the playoffs it has choked. Choked in the sense that it fell well short of its "expectations"--not made-up meaningless expectations imposed by media hype and spoiled fans, but expectations that the team itself established through the expressed desires of the players and front office, and through the high level of play throughout the regular season. Choked in the sense that they failed to play at a level equal to their talent when everything was at stake.

I certainly don't mean to imply that you're dumb for not considering it a choke, or an inferior fan, or anything. And I certainly feel, as I'm sure many others do, that in the event of a loss the villain will be much more the arbitrariness of a 5-game series than anything else. But I don't see how you can look back on the last few years--the WFC with a barebones starting staff; the acquisitions of Lee, Doc, Oswalt, Lee again, Pence; the dominant regular seasons of this year and to a lesser extent last year--and not consider a loss Friday to be just about the most excruciating outcome imaginable for this era of the franchise, even if you don't think the term "choke" is called for.

Our house in the middle of our street...

"I submit that the Cards gained a lot of confidence and mojo coming back on Lee and debunking the myth of invincibility of the fab 4."

I am sure the Cardinals have utter respect for the Phillies starting pitchers and knew facing them is never easy but were they operating under the myth that they were invincible. I doubt it - especially having seen the Phillies pitchers several times this year and over the years and having beaten each of them at some point this year. Maybe if we were facing the Williamsport Cutters that would be true.

@clout - "It would be ironic but not unprecedented. The great teams of 1976-83 won one World Series. The 1980 team was a clear cut below the 1976-77 teams in terms of talent, but they got some breaks and timely hitting in the post-season. In fact, even the weakest team of the bunch (1983) went further in post-season that the best teams did.

Such are the vagaries of post-season.
"

----------------------------------
I look back in fondness on those teams that didnt get to the WS. I think its gonna be tough for me to look back in fondness on this current team if they dont. At least in the near future anyway.

EFF: I don't think the Rays were so much hot as the Sox were dreadfully cold

Repost:

These comments will be a fun read next week when we're crushing the inferior Diamondbacks.

What are we crediting Pujols with on the Utley play, not being blind? It's not like his back was turned and he 'felt' him trying to run to third. Pujols was receiving the throw from SS and was directly facing Utley. It would have been incredibly stupid if he didn't see him and make the throw.

Cyclic: Same way we're crushing the inferior wild card team Cardinals?

I look back in fondness on those teams that didnt get to the WS.

By '78 the bloom was off that rose. The win in '80 did not erase the pain of '64, it merely erased the pain of '76-'78 and '79 (remember when Pete Rose came in and immediately led the Phils to a WFC? Oh, right.)

So now the Cards think they can beat Halladay because they beat Oswalt? They must know that they're two different pitchers at this point.

"Performing on a particular task compare to other teams at the 10-20th percentile is really poor."

10-20th percentile of what? Of the parameters you decided were relevant? You can make any team look like choke artists by pulling stats out of your rear end.

The Cardinals were up 3-0 in Game 1 about 90 seconds into the game. My research shows that 95% of teams that score 3 runs within the first 5 minutes of Game 1 of a playoff series go on to win the series, so if the Cardinals lose, it is a MASSIVE choke job, because I said so.

Jbird,

We all know hot teams are hot until they lose, then we come up with the clear reason they did.

Oh, I do know that Rose was a VG 1B in '79, but his mojo somehow didn't put the Phils over the top, in fact, they didn't win the division for the 1st time in 4 years.

Funny game, that baseball.

Not only did the Cards score 3 runs in the very first inning, they came into the playoffs red hot, so if they lose it's a massive choke on their part.

Even within the realm of Beerleaguer semantical arguments, this discussion about what it means to "choke" is fairly brain-dead.

Other than the fact that losing tends to be involved, I don't think there are any universally accepted criteria for "choking." The term means whatever the speaker wants it to mean & labeling something either a choke or a non-choke does not explain or change the outcome. If we lose this series, is anyone going to feel any better or worse about it if we deem it a "choke," as opposed to just one of those things? And, going forward, does anyone think the off-season plans should be different if we decree that Cliff Lee choked, as opposed to if we decree that Cliff Lee just had a bad game at the wrong time?

What are we crediting Pujols with on the Utley play, not being blind? It's not like his back was turned and he 'felt' him trying to run to third. Pujols was receiving the throw from SS and was directly facing Utley. It would have been incredibly stupid if he didn't see him and make the throw.

Posted by: Iceman


Most first basemen would have stayed on the bag, gotten the out at first, and thrown late to 3rd. Every former player on MLB Network agreed.

Pujols took a chance most wouldn't, and it paid off for him. Cards fans would be lamenting his mistake if he stepped off and was late to 3rd, bringing up Howard with no outs and 1st and 3rd.

I don't even know why I'm participating in this debate.

If the Cards lose it's because Doc wants them to.

I'm calling a 19-inning shutout where Doc throws 300 pitches and the Phillies win 1-0 on a balk.

Excuse me.

If the Cards lose it's because Doc chokes them.

How many people will be jumping off bridges if Doc gives up 1-2 runs before settling in?

The Utley Pujols play kind of reminded me of the little league play where there's runners on first and third, the guy on first attempts to steal to draw the throw, the throw is made and the guy on third runs home, but although the catcher appears to throw to second he's actually throwing to the charging SS who easily nails the runner at home. It never seemed to work any better in little league than Utley's failed trick last night.

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere in all the posts about the Utley play, but Pujols is one of the best defensive firstbasemen in baseball, a fact I suspect Utley is familiar with. It was a big gamble by him.

Frankly, that play didn't bother me nearly as much as Victorino's Dom Brown imitation.

Edmunco: "Oh, I do know that Rose was a VG 1B in '79, but his mojo somehow didn't put the Phils over the top, in fact, they didn't win the division for the 1st time in 4 years.

Funny game, that baseball."

Excellent post.

Little Ollie, I played on a team that botched that play on the double steal so often that we invented a new play. I would cover second (from short) on the steal from first, the catcher would pretend to throw the ball to second, I'd jump up as if it was a massive overthrow and curse for good measure, and then the catcher would produce the ball for the tag right before the runner got to home plate. Worked the only time we used it in a game.

clout: Neither Utley's bad gamble nor Vic's Dom Brown impression were amusing to me. When the most intelligent player on my team does something stupid, & my Gold Glove CF falls down & buries the resulting throw into the ground 2 feet in front of him, laughter is not going to be my predominant reaction.

There are many here that are a lot more rational and level headed about Game 5 than I am. I know if the Phillies lose, I going to be sick, and the fact that they might have gotten unlucky is no consolation (to my mind) for the lack of a WFC for a team that is in "win now" mode.

I wish I could have your level of objectivity.

GTD
I was making dinner when Vic made that stupid play. It looked like he was being tazed!
I screamed WTF are you DOING !!?!?!?
thank God no one was around.

"I screamed WTF are you DOING !!?!?!?
thank God no one was around."

Ha! Better than me. I wanted to kick something, so I kicked the bed, thinking it would be soft and have some give. Instead I accidentally kicked the bed frame. Big mistake. At least I didn't break my foot (I think.)

Coste on the Mike and Ike show basically said
if the Phils cant score and lose at home with Halladay on the mound, then they dont deserve to be in the playoffs.
I think it puts it in perspective for me. Baseball season will be over for me. And I will have 2 sunny days to recover and put it behind me.

Heather- I hate when I do that ! Always seem to hit the metal part!

Utley tried to make something happen. For a team that wasnt doing anything. Doc will have to come out and blank the Cards if we are expected to advance. The tensions are real high and the momentum shifted back to the Cards. Pray people kneel down and pray if we dont advance this will be a huge disappointment.

I hope the team and the crowd at tomorrow's game are a bit looser than the average Beerleaguer.

If the Phils don't at least make it to the WS, I'm going to have the same feeling I have when after a year of spending hundreds of hours following the stock market for my measly $10,000 account I realize I haven't made a dime -- what a effing waste of time!

But then the feeling will soon pass and I'll start thinking about next year.

"Frankly, that play didn't bother me nearly as much as Victorino's Dom Brown imitation."

What do you expect from a "choker" like Vic?

It's not like he gets big hits in the playoffs when the team is under pressure, right? I mean, if he had done that, he wouldn't so obviously be a "choker." But that has never happened.

BAP -

"Other than the fact that losing tends to be involved, I don't think there are any universally accepted criteria for "choking.""

I believe the following captures the definition of "choke" as it is generally applied in sports.


"4. To fail to perform effectively because of nervous agitation or tension, especially in an athletic contest: choked by missing an easy putt on the final hole."


As such, I think that MG's argument - that while saying a team "choked" isn't objective, "the numbers" would prove that a loss tomorrow = "choking" - is just a tad ridiculous, not to mention self-contradicting.

Little Ollie: I think the Diamondbacks actually tried that play this series, Weeks took the throw at 2nd and immediately threw it back to the catcher for the out at home.

Rube has tried to patch a flawed and declining team with superior starting pitching. It's an interesting experiment.

Does anyone want to weigh in on Ryan Howard's legacy?? He is an amazing player in August and September but, come playoff time, he seems to shrink and disappear. I haven't had a chance to go over all of the stats but he did set the strikeout record for a World Series in 2009, right? Then, last year, he ended the season with the bat on his shoulder. Take away Game 1 this year and he is, and I am going just from memory here, 0 for 12ish with 6 K's. Also, read today that the homer in Game 1 was his first RBI in 9 consecutive playoff games. Is this what we get for $120 million??

BTW - great picture with that post.

But how did you get a picture from the final moments of tomorrow's game when it hasn't even taken place yet?

Hugh: If they're not I'm sure J-Roll will keep us duly informed. Who knows, if decibel levels are high enough he might even deign to run out a batted ball or two.

Can't the Utley play both be a little over-aggressive on Utley's part AND a good play on Pujols part? Does anyone think any of the other remaining 1b's (Howard or Fielder or Goldschmidt) would have popped of 1b and made that throw? What wasn't smart on Utley's part is that he should have known Pujols is a great fielder and former 3b and OF so he has an better and more accurate arm than a lot of 1b's. If Pujols stays on the bag to get Pence at 1st before throwing, Utley's safe at 3rd.

"We" are not paying Howard the money. Putting aside whether Howard is earning the money that someone else is paying him, he had a solid if not great year and I'm glad he's in our lineup. You also might argue he won one of the four games for the team, which I put a lot of value on. Let's hope he makes it two out of five.

I just hope Chooch finishes this series w/ a Batting Average of .100 or greater.

Not to be difficult here, but "we" actually are paying Howard the money. Ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. all come out of the fan's pocket. I realize we have no say in personnel decisions and I actually thought it was a solid deal at the time for a player of his caliber. I'm just looking for some discussion on his playoff resume and seemingly declining regular season numbers.

I just don't get how if 99 out of 100 first basemen wouldn't make the play Pujols made it's still a "big gamble" by Utley.

"I just hope Chooch finishes this series w/ a Batting Average of .100 or greater."

I don't give a crap if Chooch finishes with a batting average of .750 if the Phils lose.

Don't care if he finishes with a batting average of .040 if the Phils win.

I suspect you feel the same.

Phlipper: "Losing 2 out of 3 games happens a lot in baseball."

teams with a 2-1 lead in the LDS have advanced to the LCS ~80% of the time, I dont have the exact numbers. If they lose tomorrow, they choke. You can look up whatever webster's dictionary definition you want to dispute that.

I highly doubt any of this matters since Doc is a stud, the offense should take down Carp at home, and then f'n garbage Cardinals pen will finally show its true colors - but in case the Phils find a way to lose, its a chokejob by players who choked.

And after calling them chokers, I will gladly take this roster back for a run at 2012 and hope they don't choke again after being definitive favorites to win it all once again.

Heather: True, but I'm thinking there's a better chance of Chooch going 1-4 than there is of the Phillies not being a big, fat disappointment.

Choking, I always thought, is folding under pressure - failing for psychological reasons. Choking can't be defined as losing whenever you're heavily favored.

No Hawkdog you aren't paying his salary. You are paying to watch the Phillies, eat a hot dog and wear a Phillies shirt. That is the beginnig and end of that deal.

And if it is defined that way, it adds nothing to call the team chokers. It'd be like saying that a team is filled with spineless losers, and then, when someone challenges that assessment, explaining that any team that loses a certain number of games is by definition a team of spineless losers, regardless of whether they're actually spineless in the more common sense of the term.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG