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.
Espinoza Historical discussion spillover
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jun 5, 2015 14:28:25 GMT -5
I think it's insane that someone with his lack of size could sit mid 90s at 17 years old. It's a natural reaction to underestimate what's called intra-species variability for both plants and animals. Turns out the gene pool for most organisms is deep and wide. Here's one example. In forest stands here in the West, trees that are of the same species will react quite differently to drought stress and insect predation. Some try to grow their way through it, other genotypes place their resource bets into root development after spring growth, with subsequent defoliation. That probably reflects what has been a lot of evolutionary pressure due to climatic variability since the end of the last glaciation, 50,000 years ago. It's no different for animals, with wide variations in size, shape, musculature, lung capacity, and on and on... One of my earliest baseball memories, when I was barely in grade school, was of this guy from the great White Sox team of the late 50s. By modern standards, he wouldn't have been let near a starting rotation. That would have been a mistake. The issue for Espinoza will revolve around his durability, and his ability to keep his stuff deep into games. But there's no question that even compact pitchers can carry the water if they've got the stuff. The "Go Go Sox" were probably my earliest recollection also. The World Series between the Bums and the White Sox is still a positive memory. Early Wynn, Nellie Fox, and my favorite player for quite a while.....Luis Aparicio. Miinie Minoso was on that team if I remember. Yeah Billy was a very good little lefty.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 5, 2015 14:37:23 GMT -5
There are always exceptions with body types. But I don't think you can compare pitchers of today to pitchers of 30+ years ago. There are a lot more pitchers today throwing 95 with ridiculous sliders, etc and a lot less Bob Stanley's with their 3.65 career K/9 throwing palm balls, whatever those were. Probably a bad example, since Stanley was huge. And I'd really love to know what the average velocity was for those pitchers who used to throw both games of a double header 100 years ago. I bet it wasn't more than 80 for most of them. That was probably a day when a lot of average joe's could have played baseball if they put the time in, but hell no to that suggestion today. It didn't pay much to be an average player back then, so probably a lot of the best players were off pursuing "real careers". 71 pitchers have won the Cy Young Award since it began in 1956 the year after Cy Young died. The average height of those pitchers is 6-2, the average weight, 200 lbs. The shortest winners were Steve Stone, Mike Marshall and Whitey Ford at 5-10. The lightest was Ron Guidry at 160 (with Pedro and Tim Lincecum at 170). The tallest was Randy Johnson at 6-10. The heaviest was Sebathia at 250. I don't think there is any question that the quality of pitching overall today is superior to what it was several generations ago. Not only are more pitchers throwing harder than ever before, there also are refinements and new pitches that were not around prior to WWII, including the slider and the cutter. The science of pitching is much better understood. However, the great pitchers of the past would be great pitchers today. Walter Johnson, who is second to Cy Young in wins, was said to have thrown in the 95-100 MPH range in the 1920s. Dizzy Dean threw in that range in the 1930s - along with many others. Bob Feller, Herb Score, and many others did so in the 1950s, when my memories start. I saw the great Oriole pitchers repeatedly in the 1960s and 70s and there is no doubt in my mind that Palmer & Co. would be among the best today. Relief pitching did not really become a major specialty until the late 50s and early 60s, and even then it was not used to lighten the burden and lessen the innings pitched by the starters the way it is today. It was used when the starters faltered. As I recall, the "closer" became an identified position and began to be widely employed in the late 60s. But even then, if the starer was going well he didn't leave the game. Consequently, the good pitchers completed high percentages of their starts. When Denny McClain won 31 games in 1967 he completed 28 of his starts and pitched 336 innings. The physical feat of being a successful starter in the era before the specialized RP and limited pitch counts means those pitchers had to have far greater endurance and had to maintain command and control far longer through many more innings than what is required today. So I don't have any doubt that the good ones then would be good today.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2015 14:48:02 GMT -5
I just don't think you can assume that. The pitchers didn't look like they were throwing at max effort back then the way they do now. There's no possible way they could have thrown that way for 300+ innings. I don't even know how they could estimate what Walter Johnson or Dizzy Dean were throwing. It's not like nutrition and strength training were better back then.
If I had to guess, every one of the great pitchers from long ago would not be able to throw more innings than anyone else today and every one of the great pitchers today would be throwing 18 inning shutouts and then start 2 days later if they could go back in time.
Maybe they were throwing waterlogged balls and all the hitters were using 40 something ounce bats which weren't built for them. I don't know. But when I look at some of those 300 inning stats, I just can't help but thinking 'batting practice effort'.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jun 5, 2015 15:22:28 GMT -5
Jim Ed: I heard an interview with Eddie Lopat (at least I think it was Lopat) some years ago, and he said exactly that: there were guys in the lineup to whom you could let up a bit, and rest.
For what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 5, 2015 15:28:11 GMT -5
Jimed,
Danr may have a point. It would seem you were around for Luis Tiant's effort- what in excess of 170 pitches, against the Reds, and surely not throwing batting practice pitches? He was one of the workhorses who threw many complete games. I believe they did go max effort, but paid a price which medical science- and player agents won't let them pay today. I remember Leonard Koppett- the Bill James of his day- wrote an article in the Sporting News that showed how those pitchers tended to pay a dear price soon after those high inning seasons, with Gaylord Perry being a lone exception.
Of course the promising minor league pitchers back then would often burn out their arms too- David Clyde, Baylor Moore, etc.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 5, 2015 16:09:52 GMT -5
I just don't think you can assume that. The pitchers didn't look like they were throwing at max effort back then the way they do now. There's no possible way they could have thrown that way for 300+ innings. I don't even know how they could estimate what Walter Johnson or Dizzy Dean were throwing. It's not like nutrition and strength training were better back then. If I had to guess, every one of the great pitchers from long ago would not be able to throw more innings than anyone else today and every one of the great pitchers today would be throwing 18 inning shutouts and then start 2 days later if they could go back in time. Maybe they were throwing waterlogged balls and all the hitters were using 40 something ounce bats which weren't built for them. I don't know. But when I look at some of those 300 inning stats, I just can't help but thinking 'batting practice effort'. Not in my lifetime. I was covering baseball in the late 60s and early 70s as part of my work at UPI and those pitchers I saw and wrote about (one of my features on the Orioles in 1969, "The Happiest Ballclub," done with the great photographer Dirck Halstead, was reprinted in that year's World Series Program) were "throwing that way" all the time. And they were doing it every four games instead of five now. The Orioles had four 20-game winners in 1971, something never done before or since. Keep in mind that the casualty rate among pitchers was enormous. If a shoulder or elbow went that was the end. And many pitchers had very short careers. These fellows who managed ten to 15 years, or more, of regular pitching were amazing exceptions. Also, there is documentation of the pitching speed of Johnson and Dean and others. I just can't recall where I read it - it was a while ago. There was some science then. It didn't all start recently. There were people keeping track of things. There are a great number of eyewitness accounts. And there were films of baseball from the early 20s on, maybe even earlier. And speeds can be computed from film. I don't disagree that the overall quality of pitching was comparable to today's. All I am saying is that the really good pitchers would be really good today, maybe even better.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 5, 2015 16:29:16 GMT -5
Also, there is documentation of the pitching speed of Johnson and Dean and others. I just can't recall where I read it - it was a while ago. There was some science then. It didn't all start recently. There were people keeping track of things. There are a great number of eyewitness accounts. And there were films of baseball from the early 20s on, maybe even earlier. And speeds can be computed from film. I don't disagree that the overall quality of pitching was comparable to today's. All I am saying is that the really good pitchers would be really good today, maybe even better. some info on attempts to measure the speed of the old-timers www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 5, 2015 16:33:26 GMT -5
I just don't think you can assume that. The pitchers didn't look like they were throwing at max effort back then the way they do now. There's no possible way they could have thrown that way for 300+ innings. I don't even know how they could estimate what Walter Johnson or Dizzy Dean were throwing. It's not like nutrition and strength training were better back then. If I had to guess, every one of the great pitchers from long ago would not be able to throw more innings than anyone else today and every one of the great pitchers today would be throwing 18 inning shutouts and then start 2 days later if they could go back in time. Maybe they were throwing waterlogged balls and all the hitters were using 40 something ounce bats which weren't built for them. I don't know. But when I look at some of those 300 inning stats, I just can't help but thinking 'batting practice effort'. Not in my lifetime. I was covering baseball in the late 60s and early 70s as part of my work at UPI and those pitchers I saw and wrote about (one of my features on the Orioles in 1969, "The Happiest Ballclub," done with the great photographer Dirck Halstead, was reprinted in that year's World Series Program) were "throwing that way" all the time. And they were doing it every four games instead of five now. The Orioles had four 20-game winners in 1971, something never done before or since. Keep in mind that the casualty rate among pitchers was enormous. If a shoulder or elbow went that was the end. And many pitchers had very short careers. These fellows who managed ten to 15 years, or more, of regular pitching were amazing exceptions. Also, there is documentation of the pitching speed of Johnson and Dean and others. I just can't recall where I read it - it was a while ago. There was some science then. It didn't all start recently. There were people keeping track of things. There are a great number of eyewitness accounts. And there were films of baseball from the early 20s on, maybe even earlier. And speeds can be computed from film. I don't disagree that the overall quality of pitching was comparable to today's. All I am saying is that the really good pitchers would be really good today, maybe even better. I remember being in HS and Jeff Juden, from two towns over, was drafted in the first round because he was hitting 88-90 as an 18-y/o. I watched plenty of ML and minor-league baseball, and the reality is that pitchers throw probably an average of 3-4 mph harder than they did back in the 1980s. A major-league average fastball back when I was a kid was 87-89 for a RH. Now it's more like 91-92. Certainly, some of the outliers (Feller, Ryan, Clemens, JR Richard) threw just as hard as today's elite fireballers. But the overall quality of BOTH pitching and hitting has clearly improved.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 5, 2015 23:30:49 GMT -5
I just don't think you can assume that. The pitchers didn't look like they were throwing at max effort back then the way they do now. There's no possible way they could have thrown that way for 300+ innings. I don't even know how they could estimate what Walter Johnson or Dizzy Dean were throwing. It's not like nutrition and strength training were better back then. If I had to guess, every one of the great pitchers from long ago would not be able to throw more innings than anyone else today and every one of the great pitchers today would be throwing 18 inning shutouts and then start 2 days later if they could go back in time. Maybe they were throwing waterlogged balls and all the hitters were using 40 something ounce bats which weren't built for them. I don't know. But when I look at some of those 300 inning stats, I just can't help but thinking 'batting practice effort'. Not in my lifetime. I was covering baseball in the late 60s and early 70s as part of my work at UPI and those pitchers I saw and wrote about (one of my features on the Orioles in 1969, "The Happiest Ballclub," done with the great photographer Dirck Halstead, was reprinted in that year's World Series Program) were "throwing that way" all the time. And they were doing it every four games instead of five now. The Orioles had four 20-game winners in 1971, something never done before or since. Keep in mind that the casualty rate among pitchers was enormous. If a shoulder or elbow went that was the end. And many pitchers had very short careers. These fellows who managed ten to 15 years, or more, of regular pitching were amazing exceptions. Also, there is documentation of the pitching speed of Johnson and Dean and others. I just can't recall where I read it - it was a while ago. There was some science then. It didn't all start recently. There were people keeping track of things. There are a great number of eyewitness accounts. And there were films of baseball from the early 20s on, maybe even earlier. And speeds can be computed from film. I don't disagree that the overall quality of pitching was comparable to today's. All I am saying is that the really good pitchers would be really good today, maybe even better. You are talking to an empty room full of ears closed that flat out don't believe you, or are hesitant at best because they didn't see it with their own eyes Dan. They never saw people like Bobby Veale throw 95-100mph+ 150 pitches per game and well over 200 innings each year, every 4 days. Nolan Ryan even in his early days the same. J R Richard.. The list goes on.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 6, 2015 0:02:37 GMT -5
You are talking to an empty room full of ears closed that flat out don't believe you, or are hesitant at best because they didn't see it with their own eyes Dan. They never saw people like Bobby Veale throw 95-100mph+ 150 pitches per game and well over 200 innings each year, every 4 days. Nolan Ryan even in his early days the same. J R Richard.. The list goes on. Thanks. I guess I didn't realize the epidemic of lack of historical knowledge had spread to baseball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 6, 2015 22:11:39 GMT -5
You are talking to an empty room full of ears closed that flat out don't believe you, or are hesitant at best because they didn't see it with their own eyes Dan. They never saw people like Bobby Veale throw 95-100mph+ 150 pitches per game and well over 200 innings each year, every 4 days. Nolan Ryan even in his early days the same. J R Richard.. The list goes on. Thanks. I guess I didn't realize the epidemic of lack of historical knowledge had spread to baseball. It seems that in the effort to find the latest and greatest statistic the lack of interest in baseball history seems to increase. Personally, when I was younger I devoured whatever Bill James Baseball Abstract I could get my hands on. But working with numbers all day at my job, the last thing I really want to do is deal with a lot more numbers in baseball. It doesn't always add to the enjoyment of the game for me. Sometimes it does, but not always. But I much prefer the history of baseball to the statistical revolution. I just find it more interesting. It seems these stats are evaluative and tell you what should be happening instead of necessarily what actually happened, which history is all about. Then SABR gets tied into this. The organization is just as much about the history of baseball as it is the statistics of baseball but that seems to be the label that gets slapped on the Society of American Baseball Research. Alright getting back to Espinoza, I'm pretty excited about him. Trying not to be because he's so young, but he's somebody who has the arm to be an ace and it can be thought about him that someday if everything goes right he could be a guy battling for the Cy Young award. The Sox don't have too many guys with that type of ceiling. But there's so much time and so many things have to go right between now and then that the odds are very much against it. Still, this kid is somebody to follow and be excited about. I hope he's fronting the rotation at some point next decade.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 0:01:40 GMT -5
Telson, I too am soo excited about Espinoza (no Sox prospect has had that stuff since Andy Yount)- your posts are consistently right on by the way. Danr and Silver- forgetting history is so the western cultural norm..who here has even heard of Paul Muni, a character actor playing 7 different nationalities who twice was in best picture, and (worst of all playing guitar myself)in Rock n Roll hall of fame- Beastie boys and Kiss, out- Jethroe Tull and Yes! Thanks Tony. Interesting aside, I know an orthopedist who worked on Yount's hand (he was an ortho resident at the time, working with Bill Morgan). He off-handedly mentioned the surgery when we were talking, and didn't mention (or even recall) Yount's name. But as soon as he said it, I was like..."Oh, yeah, Andy Yount, 8th overall pick, hit high 90s in HS. Cut his hand mourning at his friend's grave." Awful end to an incredibly promising career. Even the Yanks have Brien Taylor...goes to show how fragile a pitching career is. Here's to hoping Espinoza gets to see his through (career-threatening, at least) injury-free. Love the simple delivery and easy, lightning-quick arm. He's a regular triple-digit threat waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 0:04:26 GMT -5
Thanks. I guess I didn't realize the epidemic of lack of historical knowledge had spread to baseball. It seems that in the effort to find the latest and greatest statistic the lack of interest in baseball history seems to increase. Personally, when I was younger I devoured whatever Bill James Baseball Abstract I could get my hands on. But working with numbers all day at my job, the last thing I really want to do is deal with a lot more numbers in baseball. It doesn't always add to the enjoyment of the game for me. Sometimes it does, but not always. But I much prefer the history of baseball to the statistical revolution. I just find it more interesting. It seems these stats are evaluative and tell you what should be happening instead of necessarily what actually happened, which history is all about. Then SABR gets tied into this. The organization is just as much about the history of baseball as it is the statistics of baseball but that seems to be the label that gets slapped on the Society of American Baseball Research. Alright getting back to Espinoza, I'm pretty excited about him. Trying not to be because he's so young, but he's somebody who has the arm to be an ace and it can be thought about him that someday if everything goes right he could be a guy battling for the Cy Young award. The Sox don't have too many guys with that type of ceiling. But there's so much time and so many things have to go right between now and then that the odds are very much against it. Still, this kid is somebody to follow and be excited about. I hope he's fronting the rotation at some point next decade. SABR=society for alternate baseball reality.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 7, 2015 6:13:38 GMT -5
It seems that in the effort to find the latest and greatest statistic the lack of interest in baseball history seems to increase. Personally, when I was younger I devoured whatever Bill James Baseball Abstract I could get my hands on. But working with numbers all day at my job, the last thing I really want to do is deal with a lot more numbers in baseball. It doesn't always add to the enjoyment of the game for me. Sometimes it does, but not always. But I much prefer the history of baseball to the statistical revolution. I just find it more interesting. It seems these stats are evaluative and tell you what should be happening instead of necessarily what actually happened, which history is all about. Then SABR gets tied into this. The organization is just as much about the history of baseball as it is the statistics of baseball but that seems to be the label that gets slapped on the Society of American Baseball Research. Alright getting back to Espinoza, I'm pretty excited about him. Trying not to be because he's so young, but he's somebody who has the arm to be an ace and it can be thought about him that someday if everything goes right he could be a guy battling for the Cy Young award. The Sox don't have too many guys with that type of ceiling. But there's so much time and so many things have to go right between now and then that the odds are very much against it. Still, this kid is somebody to follow and be excited about. I hope he's fronting the rotation at some point next decade. SABR=society for alternate baseball reality. SABR=Society of American Baseball Research, both statistical and historical.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 7, 2015 8:03:20 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Interesting aside, I know an orthopedist who worked on Yount's hand (he was an ortho resident at the time, working with Bill Morgan). He off-handedly mentioned the surgery when we were talking, and didn't mention (or even recall) Yount's name. But as soon as he said it, I was like..."Oh, yeah, Andy Yount, 8th overall pick, hit high 90s in HS. Cut his hand mourning at his friend's grave." Awful end to an incredibly promising career. Even the Yanks have Brien Taylor...goes to show how fragile a pitching career is. Here's to hoping Espinoza gets to see his through (career-threatening, at least) injury-free. Love the simple delivery and easy, lightning-quick arm. He's a regular triple-digit threat waiting to happen. Well, the 15th overall pick, and his career was already showing some signs of difficulty before he (i'm guessing) drunkenly smashed a beer bottle. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=yount-001and1996 Lowell, 6.29 ERA and a 10 BB/9 rate and an under 9 K/9 rate.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Jun 7, 2015 11:45:09 GMT -5
Steve,
If you were following Yount at the time, you could dismiss the SSS 38 innings that year but instead tune into two comments- one, reports of a three-quarters delivered fastball just under 100mph that had explosive movement into righty hitters, but more telling- the Atlanta Braves scouting director compared him to Kerry Wood stating that he was the best pitching prospect he'd seen in 20 years. He was the Redsox Brien Taylor/Len Bias/Normand Levielle of the last 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 7, 2015 13:01:54 GMT -5
Thanks. I guess I didn't realize the epidemic of lack of historical knowledge had spread to baseball. It seems that in the effort to find the latest and greatest statistic the lack of interest in baseball history seems to increase. Personally, when I was younger I devoured whatever Bill James Baseball Abstract I could get my hands on. But working with numbers all day at my job, the last thing I really want to do is deal with a lot more numbers in baseball. It doesn't always add to the enjoyment of the game for me. Sometimes it does, but not always. But I much prefer the history of baseball to the statistical revolution. I just find it more interesting. It seems these stats are evaluative and tell you what should be happening instead of necessarily what actually happened, which history is all about. Then SABR gets tied into this. The organization is just as much about the history of baseball as it is the statistics of baseball but that seems to be the label that gets slapped on the Society of American Baseball Research. I hope this isn't a discussion about me. I spent my childhood reading Who's Who in Baseball and pouring through baseball almanacs looking at the stats of everyone going back 100 years. There is a big difference between the history of baseball and baseball myths like "Walter Johnson used to throw 100+ for an entire 17 inning game and then pitched again 2 days later." Tell me what genetic, strength training and nutrition differences have occurred in the last 100 years to make that absolutely impossible today. I have trouble believing it no matter who the witnesses are. And the science trying to figure that out is sketchy at best. Just because I'm skeptical of these pitchers who supposedly could throw 100 with 40 complete games a season, doesn't mean I don't care about baseball history.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 15:17:14 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Interesting aside, I know an orthopedist who worked on Yount's hand (he was an ortho resident at the time, working with Bill Morgan). He off-handedly mentioned the surgery when we were talking, and didn't mention (or even recall) Yount's name. But as soon as he said it, I was like..."Oh, yeah, Andy Yount, 8th overall pick, hit high 90s in HS. Cut his hand mourning at his friend's grave." Awful end to an incredibly promising career. Even the Yanks have Brien Taylor...goes to show how fragile a pitching career is. Here's to hoping Espinoza gets to see his through (career-threatening, at least) injury-free. Love the simple delivery and easy, lightning-quick arm. He's a regular triple-digit threat waiting to happen. Well, the 15th overall pick, and his career was already showing some signs of difficulty before he (i'm guessing) drunkenly smashed a beer bottle. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=yount-001and1996 Lowell, 6.29 ERA and a 10 BB/9 rate and an under 9 K/9 rate. Huh, don't know why I thought 8th. I stand corrected. That did seem awful high since I remember '92, not '94, being painful to watch. He squeezed a glass in his hand, there was no smashing of beer bottles. I don't put any stock in the limited results from less than 40 innings in SS ball. That's far more the 'norm' for HS pitchers than rocketing through the system with 1.- ERAs. I put a lot more stock in scouting reports and industry quotes. If he'd had two more years, then I'd be more inclined to look at the statistical results and give credence to them.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 15:18:35 GMT -5
Thanks Tony. Interesting aside, I know an orthopedist who worked on Yount's hand (he was an ortho resident at the time, working with Bill Morgan). He off-handedly mentioned the surgery when we were talking, and didn't mention (or even recall) Yount's name. But as soon as he said it, I was like..."Oh, yeah, Andy Yount, 8th overall pick, hit high 90s in HS. Cut his hand mourning at his friend's grave." Awful end to an incredibly promising career. Even the Yanks have Brien Taylor...goes to show how fragile a pitching career is. Here's to hoping Espinoza gets to see his through (career-threatening, at least) injury-free. Love the simple delivery and easy, lightning-quick arm. He's a regular triple-digit threat waiting to happen. Well, the 15th overall pick, and his career was already showing some signs of difficulty before he (i'm guessing) drunkenly smashed a beer bottle. www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=yount-001and1996 Lowell, 6.29 ERA and a 10 BB/9 rate and an under 9 K/9 rate. Btw, FWIW, that pick shows that even the surgeon's recollection was off...no injury to the second digit.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 15:21:39 GMT -5
SABR=society for alternate baseball reality. SABR=Society of American Baseball Research, both statistical and historical. Umm...clearly my attempt at humor needed more water added.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 7, 2015 19:33:39 GMT -5
Taylor kind of looks like a young Youkilis there, don't he?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 9, 2015 5:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 9, 2015 11:19:47 GMT -5
Sorry, Andrew Yount. The guy with the enormous photo on this page.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jun 9, 2015 11:44:34 GMT -5
Yes, but responding to they post as obviously you meant it wouldn't be very funny.
|
|
|