SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2015 HOF class; The line forms behind Pedro
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 29, 2014 17:28:47 GMT -5
Don't you think it's telling that there is a limit? Ask yourself why? It's so the pool of players inducted is limited. It should be hard to get in, like really hard. If you can't crack the top 10 in a given year, you probably aren't a HOF caliber player. Comparing players across eras is the dumb part. If the numbers of a ton of players in one era dwarf those in another then the numbers aren't comparable. 20 home runs in the 80s was an accomplishment - kind of like it is today - 30 was really good. 30 in the late 90s was an 8 hole hitter. 1) Demonstrably wrong. It used to be true, but the BBWAA wouldn't vote for obvious first-ballot guys like Tim Raines because they literally vote as if drawing walks and playing defense don't count at all.* Then they refused to vote for anyone they thought was using PDA's (they certainly would not be voting for Ted Williams had he recently retired). As a result, there are now 15 or 20 guys on the ballot who are inarguable HOFers by classic standards. 2) But this is what the BBWAA has always done, idiotically. The Hall is littered with hitters from the 20's and 30's offensive explosion. If you look at voting patterns too closely (not advised as your brain may explode), it appears as if many HOF voters base their selection of hitters by career hit total. And just that. Really. Honest to God. *Actually not quite true: drawing walks hurts your HOF chances insofar as it lowers career hit totals.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 29, 2014 17:35:50 GMT -5
I'll point out once more that the ten player limit is not a problem. The problem -- the entire problem -- is the electorate.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 29, 2014 17:47:04 GMT -5
He is penalizing them by not voting for them. Because they are too good, too much of a shoe in. A vote for Mussina or Walker is not changing the fact that they are not going in, as much as it not changing Johnson's or Pedro's legacy. Vote for the most deserving. Pedro and Johnson are pretty much heads and shoulders above the rest. Vote for them then go from there. Sure, it should be that way. But as long as we retain this broken voting limitation, I have no problem with guys like Bernadino -- who I respect more than the average writer privileged with a vote -- getting experimental to try to usher in players with an unfairly reduced shot. It's no real problem-solver, but it's more likely to help squeeze at least one guy in than it is going to hurt a shoe-in like Pedro. Bernadino's ballot is terrific, given that he publicized it, as an implied criticism of the 10-player limit. Pedro Martinez is my favorite baseball player of all time. He was the best pitcher of all time. If I had had a ballot this year, I think I would have left him off it, and then explained why as prominently and publicly as possible. While it's true that voting for, say, Allen Trammel instead of Pedro this year will change nothing for either guy this year, in the long run, it may well help get Trammel elected (even if by the Veteran's committee).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 29, 2014 17:51:30 GMT -5
I'll point out once more that the ten player limit is not a problem. The problem -- the entire problem -- is the electorate. Well, yeah, but years of incompetence by the general electorate have made the ten player limit a practical problem for the minority of competent voters. The guys who should be excoriated for having failed at their jobs this year are not guys leaving this or that guy off the ballot. It should be anyone voting for fewer than 10.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 29, 2014 18:19:52 GMT -5
The guys who should be excoriated for having failed at their jobs this year are not guys leaving this or that guy off the ballot. It should be anyone voting for fewer than 10. Yes. Anyone who can't find ten worthy names on this ballot shouldn't be voting.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 18:31:42 GMT -5
Don't you think it's telling that there is a limit? Ask yourself why? It's so the pool of players inducted is limited. It should be hard to get in, like really hard. If you can't crack the top 10 in a given year, you probably aren't a HOF caliber player. Comparing players across eras is the dumb part. If the numbers of a ton of players in one era dwarf those in another then the numbers aren't comparable. 20 home runs in the 80s was an accomplishment - kind of like it is today - 30 was really good. 30 in the late 90s was an 8 hole hitter. 1) Demonstrably wrong. It used to be true, but the BBWAA wouldn't vote for obvious first-ballot guys like Tim Raines because they literally vote as if drawing walks and playing defense don't count at all.* Then they refused to vote for anyone they thought was using PDA's (they certainly would not be voting for Ted Williams had he recently retired). As a result, there are now 15 or 20 guys on the ballot who are inarguable HOFers by classic standards. 2) But this is what the BBWAA has always done, idiotically. The Hall is littered with hitters from the 20's and 30's offensive explosion. If you look at voting patterns too closely (not advised as your brain may explode), it appears as if many HOF voters base their selection of hitters by career hit total. And just that. Really. Honest to God. *Actually not quite true: drawing walks hurts your HOF chances insofar as it lowers career hit totals. How is Tim Rains a first ballot hall of famer? I think he is a fringe type of player at best. Ranks 120th in all time on base percentage and 5th in stolen bases. He played 23 years and had 2,605 hits. Espn DWAR only goes back to 93, but in the last 9 years he played his rDWAR was -5.8. He only posted two seasons that weren't negative and that was a 0.0 and a 0.1. I will admit I hardly got to see him play, I'm just not old enough as he started playing before I was born. I just see him as a modern day Kenny Lofton, who I don't think is a hall of famer.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 29, 2014 18:38:44 GMT -5
Why is there a difference between a first ballot HOF and not? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You won't vote for a HOF player because of why? He should be elected in year 2 or 3 not year 1? Stop the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 29, 2014 18:44:39 GMT -5
Don't you think it's telling that there is a limit? Ask yourself why? It's so the pool of players inducted is limited. It should be hard to get in, like really hard. If you can't crack the top 10 in a given year, you probably aren't a HOF caliber player. Comparing players across eras is the dumb part. If the numbers of a ton of players in one era dwarf those in another then the numbers aren't comparable. 20 home runs in the 80s was an accomplishment - kind of like it is today - 30 was really good. 30 in the late 90s was an 8 hole hitter. 1) Demonstrably wrong. It used to be true, but the BBWAA wouldn't vote for obvious first-ballot guys like Tim Raines because they literally vote as if drawing walks and playing defense don't count at all.* Then they refused to vote for anyone they thought was using PDA's (they certainly would not be voting for Ted Williams had he recently retired). As a result, there are now 15 or 20 guys on the ballot who are inarguable HOFers by classic standards. 2) But this is what the BBWAA has always done, idiotically. The Hall is littered with hitters from the 20's and 30's offensive explosion. If you look at voting patterns too closely (not advised as your brain may explode), it appears as if many HOF voters base their selection of hitters by career hit total. And just that. Really. Honest to God. *Actually not quite true: drawing walks hurts your HOF chances insofar as it lowers career hit totals. Comparing guys across eras is dumb. Saying a player today should be in the HOF because he was better than a guy who made the HOF 50 years ago is poor reasoning. Times change. Players evolve through better training measures and more opportunity and money. The HOF is for the best players in their Era not to compare a 2000s player to a guy from 1930. Most of the guys in the current game should have dominated the game in 1930. Additionally, the bar shouldn't be permanently lowered by some bad choices- all that does is continue to lower the bar. As far as I'm concerned, you should get a max of 5 years on the ballot, even that is too much but just in case I'd accept 5. Taking 15 years in nonsense. If it takes THAT much debate then you're just a great player who's not quite Hall worthy.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 29, 2014 18:45:18 GMT -5
A guy like Tim Raines fell thru the cracks which is what a veterans committee should clean up.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 19:21:26 GMT -5
Why is there a difference between a first ballot HOF and not? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You won't vote for a HOF player because of why? He should be elected in year 2 or 3 not year 1? Stop the nonsense. There is a huge difference in a first ballot hall of famer and someone that gets in after years of people campaigning for him in this current format. First ballot guys like Pedro and Johnson get elected because there is no doubt they are hall of famers. You then have the guys where people are torn, some think they are and some don't. To get elected as a first ballot hall of famer is seen as a great honor. Look at this years ballot, for me there are more then 10 hall of fame players, so just because I don't vote for one in his first year doesn't mean that I don't think he should get in. Just that there were ten players that I thought were better in that given year.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 29, 2014 19:41:00 GMT -5
Is anyone else planning on being at the Induction Ceremony on July 26th? I'm already making plans. Never been to Cooperstown, always said I'd go when Pedro's turn came. Re the HOF: there is no question that the bar has been raised significantly over the years. Guys that are viewed as borderline candidates by today's voters, and who are not getting anywhere close to 75%: guys of that caliber who played before expansion are, essentially to a man, in the HOF. Larry Walker and Tim Raines > Harry Heilmann, Al Simmons, and Paul Waner (and > Reggie Jackson and Tony Gwynn, but that's a different set of problems) Allen Trammel > Pee Wee Reese and Joe Cronin Or, for that matter, Dwight Evans > Sam Crawford, Goose Goslin, Enos Slaughter, Richie Ashburn, etc. When you combine the ever-increasing bar to get in with the BBWAA's collective complete incompetence at player evaluation, it's somewhat of a scandal. I too have never been. I'd planned on boycotting it until Bonds and Clemens were elected, but I forgot about Pedro at the time of that declaration.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 29, 2014 19:52:54 GMT -5
Just wanted to throw out what my ballot would look like. Bagewell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Schilling,and Smoltz. That leaves off Trammell and Sheffield players I wanted to vote for. Then it leaves the fringe players for me Raines, Walker, Sosa, McGwire, E. Martinez, McGriff, and Kent.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 29, 2014 20:18:02 GMT -5
Pedro, Unit, Smoltz, Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Schilling, McGriff, L. Smith (Gossage with another 150 saves), E. Martinez.
Confirmed PED guys need not apply. That's not out of any moral righteousness. It's because their respective bodies of work aren't authentic. But I don't go to the extreme of leaving guys off when there's a lack of evidence just because CHB says they "just don't look right."
I'm also surprised at the debate about whether it's acceptable to leave top guys off a ballot to help lesser guys. Really? We want to condone dishonesty? Isn't a voter's obligation to vote for the best candidates and leave other agendas to the side?
The Florida voter who was sure Gore was the best candidate but was so disgusted with our political process that he voted for Nader to make a statement probably felt pretty noble. After all, what could possibly go wrong, right?
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Dec 29, 2014 21:05:35 GMT -5
My ballot: Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds, Bonds.
10 votes, right?
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 29, 2014 21:54:25 GMT -5
Is anyone else planning on being at the Induction Ceremony on July 26th? I'm already making plans. Never been to Cooperstown, always said I'd go when Pedro's turn came. Re the HOF: there is no question that the bar has been raised significantly over the years. Guys that are viewed as borderline candidates by today's voters, and who are not getting anywhere close to 75%: guys of that caliber who played before expansion are, essentially to a man, in the HOF. Larry Walker and Tim Raines > Harry Heilmann, Al Simmons, and Paul Waner (and > Reggie Jackson and Tony Gwynn, but that's a different set of problems) Allen Trammel > Pee Wee Reese and Joe Cronin Or, for that matter, Dwight Evans > Sam Crawford, Goose Goslin, Enos Slaughter, Richie Ashburn, etc. When you combine the ever-increasing bar to get in with the BBWAA's collective complete incompetence at player evaluation, it's somewhat of a scandal. I think you chose some bad examples there to make your point, EV. Most of the the guys you named had pretty stellar careers. Heilmann, for instance, had a career OPS-plus of 147 and a career WAR (bRef) of 72.1. That WAR is despite a career dWAR of -13.9, and who knows how reliable ancient dWARs are? Either way, he's ahead of Raines (career bRef WAR of 66), as are Simmons, Waner and Gwynn. My own view is that the BBWAA has usually - but certainly not always - gotten it right. If you're looking for true clunkers, try Scooter Rizzuto, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, and Rabbit Maranville. In fact, here's a pretty good list (though I strongly disagree with its inclusion of Rollie Fingers): theweek.com/article/index/254976/the-worst-hall-of-famers-at-each-position-per-sabermetricsIf I can put my social crusading hat on for a minute, I'll say that I have big issues with some of those old segregationist skunks being in there and yes, I'm thinking of our own Tom Yawkey. I'm also thinking of Kenesaw Landis, Charlie Comiskey and a few others. As far as going to the induction, be prepared to get out onto the grounds a couple of hours before the ceremony to get a decent spot. That can be pretty unpleasant on a hot July day. I was in Cooperstown the day after the ceremony this year and I found it extremely enjoyable. There were enough people to make it lively and fun but not so many that it was impossible to move. I'll probably go on either the day before or the day after the Pedro Show.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 29, 2014 21:57:45 GMT -5
Why is there a difference between a first ballot HOF and not? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You won't vote for a HOF player because of why? He should be elected in year 2 or 3 not year 1? Stop the nonsense. There is a huge difference in a first ballot hall of famer and someone that gets in after years of people campaigning for him in this current format. First ballot guys like Pedro and Johnson get elected because there is no doubt they are hall of famers. You then have the guys where people are torn, some think they are and some don't. To get elected as a first ballot hall of famer is seen as a great honor. Look at this years ballot, for me there are more then 10 hall of fame players, so just because I don't vote for one in his first year doesn't mean that I don't think he should get in. Just that there were ten players that I thought were better in that given year. The point is that it's dumb to say someone shouldn't be a first ballot hall of famer. We all understand how the process works. A guy is either a HOF or not.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 29, 2014 22:10:50 GMT -5
We all known damn well that either Jeter or Mariano will be the first unanimous player voted In. Ah, I wouldn't sweat this. Mays and Aaron weren't unanimous and they were at least as good as Cap'n Jetes (sarcasm intended). I can see a special HOF exhibit on intangibles, though.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,656
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 29, 2014 23:43:51 GMT -5
1) Demonstrably wrong. It used to be true, but the BBWAA wouldn't vote for obvious first-ballot guys like Tim Raines because they literally vote as if drawing walks and playing defense don't count at all.* Then they refused to vote for anyone they thought was using PDA's (they certainly would not be voting for Ted Williams had he recently retired). As a result, there are now 15 or 20 guys on the ballot who are inarguable HOFers by classic standards. 2) But this is what the BBWAA has always done, idiotically. The Hall is littered with hitters from the 20's and 30's offensive explosion. If you look at voting patterns too closely (not advised as your brain may explode), it appears as if many HOF voters base their selection of hitters by career hit total. And just that. Really. Honest to God. *Actually not quite true: drawing walks hurts your HOF chances insofar as it lowers career hit totals. How is Tim Rains a first ballot hall of famer? I think he is a fringe type of player at best. Ranks 120th in all time on base percentage and 5th in stolen bases. He played 23 years and had 2,605 hits. Espn DWAR only goes back to 93, but in the last 9 years he played his rDWAR was -5.8. He only posted two seasons that weren't negative and that was a 0.0 and a 0.1. I will admit I hardly got to see him play, I'm just not old enough as he started playing before I was born. I just see him as a modern day Kenny Lofton, who I don't think is a hall of famer.
Tim Raines should be a hall of famer. He was better than Kenny Lofton, a better OBP guy who played his peak when numbers weren't as inflated. He was a much better basestealer, more steals, a clearly better pct. At one point, I think it was the 1988 baseball abstract, Bill James wrote an article about who he thought the best all around player in baseball. He picked Tim Raines. I think, based on your age, you're looking at the useful Tim Raines who came off the bench and helped teams like the Yankees in the mid to late 90s. The Tim Raines of the 1980s who I watched growing up was the 2nd best leadoff hitter in baseball, only behind Rickey Henderson.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,656
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 29, 2014 23:50:34 GMT -5
Pedro, Unit, Smoltz, Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Schilling, McGriff, L. Smith (Gossage with another 150 saves), E. Martinez. Confirmed PED guys need not apply. That's not out of any moral righteousness. It's because their respective bodies of work aren't authentic. But I don't go to the extreme of leaving guys off when there's a lack of evidence just because CHB says they "just don't look right." I'm also surprised at the debate about whether it's acceptable to leave top guys off a ballot to help lesser guys. Really? We want to condone dishonesty? Isn't a voter's obligation to vote for the best candidates and leave other agendas to the side? The Florida voter who was sure Gore was the best candidate but was so disgusted with our political process that he voted for Nader to make a statement probably felt pretty noble. After all, what could possibly go wrong, right? If I had a vote, I'd vote for Pedro, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Edgar Martinez, Curt Schilling, and Alan Trammell. I'd certainly consider Fred McGriff, Lee Smith, and Mike Mussina if allowed to vote for more than 10 players. I don't think I could vote for Clemens and Bonds right now, nor Sheffield, but who knows if Piazza or particularly Bagwell were clean? There's no smoking gun to indicate otherwise (and who knows for sure who was really clean?), but I could see withholding a vote to for those two for a little while to see if any evidence otherwise comes out, but short of that, they're HOFers.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 30, 2014 10:56:40 GMT -5
How is Tim Rains a first ballot hall of famer? I think he is a fringe type of player at best. Ranks 120th in all time on base percentage and 5th in stolen bases. He played 23 years and had 2,605 hits. Espn DWAR only goes back to 93, but in the last 9 years he played his rDWAR was -5.8. He only posted two seasons that weren't negative and that was a 0.0 and a 0.1. I will admit I hardly got to see him play, I'm just not old enough as he started playing before I was born. I just see him as a modern day Kenny Lofton, who I don't think is a hall of famer.
Tim Raines should be a hall of famer. He was better than Kenny Lofton, a better OBP guy who played his peak when numbers weren't as inflated. He was a much better basestealer, more steals, a clearly better pct. At one point, I think it was the 1988 baseball abstract, Bill James wrote an article about who he thought the best all around player in baseball. He picked Tim Raines. I think, based on your age, you're looking at the useful Tim Raines who came off the bench and helped teams like the Yankees in the mid to late 90s. The Tim Raines of the 1980s who I watched growing up was the 2nd best leadoff hitter in baseball, only behind Rickey Henderson. What's hilarious about the "he was no better than Kenny Lofton" argument is that Lofton had 68.2 career bWAR. There's a very strong argument for Lofton in HOF but voters completely ignored him for no good reason. It's a case of making one mistake, and rather than acknowledging that mistake, using it as precedent for more bad decisions. It's like how the same writers who were so inept as to keep giving the MVP to guys who happened to be standing next to Chase Utley when Utley was the best player in baseball will, when debating Utley's HOF case years from now, will hold his lack of MVP wins against him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2014 11:18:58 GMT -5
Don't you think it's telling that there is a limit? Ask yourself why? It's so the pool of players inducted is limited. It should be hard to get in, like really hard. If you can't crack the top 10 in a given year, you probably aren't a HOF caliber player. Comparing players across eras is the dumb part. If the numbers of a ton of players in one era dwarf those in another then the numbers aren't comparable. 20 home runs in the 80s was an accomplishment - kind of like it is today - 30 was really good. 30 in the late 90s was an 8 hole hitter. The issue is that because of PED shenanigans, comparatively few players were voted in over the past half-decade, which has left the ballot overcrowded. Deserving players are thus being edged out. The vast majority of posters here are citing stats that are adjusted for league environment. The folks who aren't are the dinosaur BBWAA voters still using career hit/HR/win totals to judge HOF candidacy.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 30, 2014 11:24:36 GMT -5
Don't you think it's telling that there is a limit? Ask yourself why? It's so the pool of players inducted is limited. It should be hard to get in, like really hard. If you can't crack the top 10 in a given year, you probably aren't a HOF caliber player. Comparing players across eras is the dumb part. If the numbers of a ton of players in one era dwarf those in another then the numbers aren't comparable. 20 home runs in the 80s was an accomplishment - kind of like it is today - 30 was really good. 30 in the late 90s was an 8 hole hitter. The issue is that because of PED shenanigans, comparatively few players were voted in over the past half-decade, which has left the ballot overcrowded. Deserving players are thus being edged out. The vast majority of posters here are citing stats that are adjusted for league environment. The folks who aren't are the dinosaur BBWAA voters still using career hit/HR/win totals to judge HOF candidacy. The PED stuff doesn't account for the full depth of the voter's incompetency. Raines and Trammel (for starters) are two good examples of this. These are the people who took fifteen years to decide that Bert Blyleven was a better pitcher than Jack Morris. PED issues are the tip of the iceberg here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2014 11:29:06 GMT -5
I'm also surprised at the debate about whether it's acceptable to leave top guys off a ballot to help lesser guys. Really? We want to condone dishonesty? Isn't a voter's obligation to vote for the best candidates and leave other agendas to the side? The Florida voter who was sure Gore was the best candidate but was so disgusted with our political process that he voted for Nader to make a statement probably felt pretty noble. After all, what could possibly go wrong, right? There is no rule or instruction, implicit or otherwise, that says you have to vote for the "best" candidate. You can vote based on whatever criteria you like, which allows for strategic voting like this just like it allows for not voting for some of the best players in baseball history because of vague PED suspicion. Also, holy false equivalency, Batman. This voting strategy certainly does not put Pedro's HOF candidacy in any risk.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 30, 2014 11:58:46 GMT -5
The point is that it's dumb to say someone shouldn't be a first ballot hall of famer. We all understand how the process works. A guy is either a HOF or not. Applying that reasoning, is Tim Raines a HOF or not? I would have voted for him every time he was eligible.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 30, 2014 12:14:16 GMT -5
Tim Raines should be a hall of famer. He was better than Kenny Lofton, a better OBP guy who played his peak when numbers weren't as inflated. He was a much better basestealer, more steals, a clearly better pct. At one point, I think it was the 1988 baseball abstract, Bill James wrote an article about who he thought the best all around player in baseball. He picked Tim Raines. I think, based on your age, you're looking at the useful Tim Raines who came off the bench and helped teams like the Yankees in the mid to late 90s. The Tim Raines of the 1980s who I watched growing up was the 2nd best leadoff hitter in baseball, only behind Rickey Henderson. What's hilarious about the "he was no better than Kenny Lofton" argument is that Lofton had 68.2 career bWAR. There's a very strong argument for Lofton in HOF but voters completely ignored him for no good reason. It's a case of making one mistake, and rather than acknowledging that mistake, using it as precedent for more bad decisions. It's like how the same writers who were so inept as to keep giving the MVP to guys who happened to be standing next to Chase Utley when Utley was the best player in baseball will, when debating Utley's HOF case years from now, will hold his lack of MVP wins against him. Does that mean I can't use the "But Alan Trammell was way better than Phil Rizzuto" argument?
|
|
|