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.
"Times Arround the Order": The Truth Identified!
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 11, 2024 23:41:49 GMT -5
I know I spent most of the winter trying to convince folks that the ability to go deep into games was largely a function of stamina (versus fatigue) rather than depth of arsenal (pitch variety). I was wrong, and I apologize.
It's entirely about stamina. Let me first give you the reasons this makes sense, and then the facts that back it up.
First, in modern baseball players have film of their opposition that they study before a game. There's not a heck of a lot of room left for new discoveries or insights. You're basically looking for guys who couldn't sleep much at night after a huge arguing with their wife, or chose not to (for opposite reasons) with their girlfriend.
But the big thing that everyone overlooks is that the supposed acclimation to the opponent is a double sided coin. The pitchers are not only watching the hitters and looking for differences from the scouting report, they are also monitoring themselves.
I don't doubt that this sort of thing happens, but the idea that hitters as a rule get a measurable edge from seeing a pitcher a second and third time -- as opposed to getting an edge because the pitcher is continually tiring -- just make sense no me.
Some Facts.
The impetus for this study was of course Tanner Houck. Hocuk last year in his first 8 starts had had a 0.38 ERA in innings 1 through 3 and a 12.50 thereafter. In his last 5 starts before his injury this became 3.00 and 6.30, so be might have started pacing himself. Overall, 1.38 vs. 10.05. That was a .244 xwOBA versus .376.
So I did the following:
-- Looked at all the starting pitchers up to two days after Houck's injury (to grab further gus in his rotation)
-- Took the 150 who faced the most hitters -- Selected the 84 who were above average through innings 3 -- Removed 8 guys whose PA after inning three were less than 70% of those in the first 3 innings. (The remaining pitchers averaged 93%.)
-- Identified the 10 pitchers who fared best in innings 4+ relative to 1-3, and the 10 worst.
We can name the groups after their champions: Strider-Types vs. Houck-Types
I then put their pitch use percentages into the spreadsheet, in order from most favorite to least used. For instance, Zach Grienke was 26 20 17 16 14 7, while Joe Ryan was 57 27 11 5. (These are totals across all innings.)
So, how did the struggling Houck-Types pitch, compared to the killer Strider-Types?
The usage level of #2 and #3 pitches were all over the map. You might have expect that. But there were clear trends for favorite pitch use, and for total 4th to sixth pitches, total.
And this is what you see:
The Houck-Types threw their fave pitches 16% less than the Strider-Types (41% vs. 48%), and their 4 to 6 pitches 56% more (19% versus 12%).
(Yes, this is backwards from what people believe.)
Put another way: in this sample, there's little difference between these two types, except that once in 14 pitches the guys who flourish going deep in games go to their favorite pitch while the guys who struggle doing so use one of the extra ones.
Ideally you'd use the full season and grab everyone who was more than 0.5 standard deviations better or worse than average. Given that in this sample, the reverse case (#1 pitches) just misses being statistically significant (p = .08), there's no way the full study is going to indicate a real effect in the supposed direction.
----
My favorite Times Around Order Split:
.673 / .673 / .611 (OPS)
Pitches: 43% sinker, 42% 4-seamer, 15% slider.
Justin Masterson, 2011.
That winter I did a study of this question, and the only thing I could find was that ace pitchers almost always had a usable 4th pitch.
It's all stamina, folks. And given that Houck, Crawford, and Whitlock have all devoted themselves to improving theirs this year, that's good news.
`
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by cdj on Mar 12, 2024 0:40:38 GMT -5
Also with many pitchers trying to max out each pitch these days it’s not surprising they don’t have the stamina to sustain performance for longer outings
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 12, 2024 6:48:02 GMT -5
Also with many pitchers trying to max out each pitch these days it’s not surprising they don’t have the stamina to sustain performance for longer outings True. Pitchers used to pitch instead of bat dodge. It wasnt about max velocity just about every pitch. It was about upsetting batter timing, changing locations, and hitting spots and using max velocity when it was needed. I'm not convinced that the way things being done today is the best way. It's not like it's keeping pitchers healthier today. You get a lot less out of them before they inevitably break down. I'm not sure what is being gained. And speaking just as a fan,I grew up in an era where guys were pitching 20 years and reaching 300 plus wins. Now adays, 200 wins constitutes a herculean effort. I grew up on an era where starters would pitch 200 plus innings and a good starter routinely pitched into the 7th. The bullpen still had its influence but the season was hardly being decided on 50 inning anonymous fungible middle relievers. 13 roster spots for pitching staffs were hardly needed. Aesthetically it was more exciting to buy tickets for a starting matchup pitting 2 solid starters or better - I was lucky to see Pedro vs Roger in 2000. Now you get a five and fly start against another team's bullpen day while starters want 30 million plus per year because they can throw enough innings to qualify for an ERA title. I realize the evolution of pitching has evolved continuously from 1 man staffs throwing 400 plus innings to 5 man rotations where 150 innings is considered a workhorse. I just wonder how much further it goes in the next 30 years. Do we get to the point of 9 pitchers for 9 innings? At what point does the trend finally reverse and the starting pitcher becomes more prevalent in the outcome of the game as they assume more responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 12, 2024 6:52:04 GMT -5
I wonder how much correlation there is between stamina and body types. Can it be pre-assed based on body type?
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Mar 12, 2024 7:29:50 GMT -5
I don't doubt that this sort of thing happens, but the idea that hitters as a rule get a measurable edge from seeing a pitcher a second and third time -- as opposed to getting an edge because the pitcher is continually tiring -- just make sense no me.
There's a lot less evidence here than you think. But one thing that counters your lightly supported theory is that familiarity with relief pitchers is starting to be understood as an issue in the playoffs. And of course on a longer time scale we are all familiar with the relative success the Sox had with Mariano Rivera in the days of yore when it seems the Sox-Yanks were playing tense playoff style games every other week. Just because you want to "prove" a specific Sox starter is better than non Eric Van's think he is doesn't really mean you can toss all examples of familiarity effecting the pitcher-batter matchup.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 12, 2024 7:46:50 GMT -5
Maybe I am being dense, but I am missing what the connection is between pitch use and stamina. Is the idea that a tiring pitcher will go to their weaker offerings more often? Why?
As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so. If he just had a regular gig of pitching 3 innings every four days he could rack up 120 IP, which is already 2/3rds of a starting pitcher's load. He could be super valuable in that role, and a real weapon in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 12, 2024 8:16:07 GMT -5
Maybe I am being dense, but I am missing what the connection is between pitch use and stamina. Is the idea that a tiring pitcher will go to their weaker offerings more often? Why? As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so. If he just had a regular gig of pitching 3 innings every four days he could rack up 120 IP, which is already 2/3rds of a starting pitcher's load. He could be super valuable in that role, and a real weapon in the playoffs. I think the argument is that stamina and depth of arsenal were the two main factors that are often held up to explain starters' differing performance when they go deep into games. Here Eric is showing that the starters who do well deep into games actually rely less on the depth of their arsenal, so it's very unlikely that batters are just getting used to a limited pitch mix. Therefore, it's a stamina issue. The post of course doesn't justify why only those two factors may have been at play, but unless you can think of another plausible factor to explain it - and my foggy, post-wake-up brain currently can't - I think the conclusion is fair.
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 12, 2024 8:28:56 GMT -5
Is there any way to incorporate average FB velocity into those splits in a way that might show the pitchers that aren't performing despite pitch mix are actually losing steam? I guess they could also be retaining FB velocity but losing grip strength (and spin) or lacking consistency on release point I'm just wondering if any of the pitch level measurables are also changing in a way that could indicate stamina over familiarity.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 12, 2024 10:06:29 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 12, 2024 10:26:17 GMT -5
Stamina makes a lot more sense to me than familiarity. A pitcher gets tired (even in a long inning) and they start to overthrow to maintain velocity. Their command and control vanish and they begin walking people they had been putting away with five pitches. They begin to miss over the plate and get hit. If it's primarily familiarity you would think everyone knows who Houck is by now and they would all be laying off the slider and his sinker and just sit on his four seam.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 15:46:07 GMT -5
I don't doubt that this sort of thing happens, but the idea that hitters as a rule get a measurable edge from seeing a pitcher a second and third time -- as opposed to getting an edge because the pitcher is continually tiring -- just make sense no me.
There's a lot less evidence here than you think. But one thing that counters your lightly supported theory is that familiarity with relief pitchers is starting to be understood as an issue in the playoffs. And of course on a longer time scale we are all familiar with the relative success the Sox had with Mariano Rivera in the days of yore when it seems the Sox-Yanks were playing tense playoff style games every other week. Just because you want to "prove" a specific Sox starter is better than non Eric Van's think he is doesn't really mean you can toss all examples of familiarity effecting the pitcher-batter matchup. Career familiarity, at least in the era before ubiquitous video to study, was very real. This is hugely different from the within-game version.
I did these splits for the Sox. A career familiarity split was at the heart of my convincing Jed Hoyer to convince Tito to bench David Ortiz against Mike Maroth have Doug Mirabelli (!) DH instead (May 3, 2005). Maroth fit the profile of guys Mirabelli could hit, Mirabelli had awful familiarity splits (pitchers have or had the edge for the first 8 PA, career) but he had already gone yard against Maroth, IIRC the 4th time he saw him. Mirabelli hit a GS with the Sox trailing 2-1 and that was it for the scoring.
Hideki Okajima, with his straight over-the-top delivery, had a huge such split. Some of you may remember Barry Bonds facing him for the first time and taking strike three right down the middle! The only time I got into trouble with the Sox was when I told Zack Scott (who had replaced Jed as the speaker-of-consultants-to Francona, and in his first stab at the job wasn't very good at talking him into anything) that he could not pitch Okajima in a high-leverage situation in this series ... whereupon Tito did exactly that and we immediately lost, a very tough loss at that. I was so upset that I fired off a "why am I doing all this work if my advice is being ignored?" complaint and I heard from (IIRC) Jed to the tune of "this is not helping."
It would be very interesting to know if this effect is still in place now that we have video and even machines that can simulate a specific pitcher.
As I said, the concept that in every game all the hitters get an edge in PA 2 versus 1, and 3 versus 2, is completely different.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 15:50:59 GMT -5
Also with many pitchers trying to max out each pitch these days it’s not surprising they don’t have the stamina to sustain performance for longer outings Yes. It no longer makes sense to pace yourself given that quality and depth of bullpens.
What I have encountered again and again is tales of young pitchers learning that getting in shape to pitch 7 of even 6 innings at the MLB level takes a lot more work than they ever imagined.
|
|
|
Post by wamderingdude on Mar 12, 2024 15:51:29 GMT -5
If i had to guess the main difference between a guy like Strider compared to houck is they have more wiggle room when they start to fade. Striders fastball goes from a 70 to a 60 and he can still get away with it whereas houcks goes from a 55 to a 45. That’s when you need more deception and a better pitch mix to keep hitters off balance and find more creative ways to get outs.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 18:03:00 GMT -5
Maybe I am being dense, but I am missing what the connection is between pitch use and stamina. Is the idea that a tiring pitcher will go to their weaker offerings more often? Why? As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so. If he just had a regular gig of pitching 3 innings every four days he could rack up 120 IP, which is already 2/3rds of a starting pitcher's load. He could be super valuable in that role, and a real weapon in the playoffs. There's no connection. The standard take on the times-around-order affect is that pitchers start the game going to their best pitch or two and later in the game they need a deeper repertoire to succeed, as the hitters have acclimated themselves to the pitches they've already seen. I'm calling that nonsensical, in the age of video. Houck spent the 22-23 winter recovering from surgery and unable to keep up his stamina, let alone work on it.
As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so.
And that is how good his stuff is.
Look, imagine that the only thing you knew about Houck was the following:
1) Of the 150 starting pitchers who had the most PA in innings 1 to 3, he ranked 2nd in xwOBA allowed, with .244.
2) He had this pitch breakdown in these innings: Pitch Pitches PA xwOBA Slider 201 50 .226 Sinker 166 39 .272 Cutter 91 30 .226 4-Seam 62 16 .348 Split 59 16 .159 3) Among the same 150 guys he ranked 125th from inning 4 on, with .376.
How would you explain #3? That's not a reliever's pitch profile. I can't think of anything other than running out of the proverbial gas.
And if you formed that hypothesis and then looked for evidence, you'd say, nailed it! You'd discover that Houck missed the entire preceding winter recovering from surgery, that he felt certain that this was the cause of his problems, and that he had proudly worked his butt off this winter.
You may recall that when he came up I discovered that his slider movement was among the best in MLB and the sinker wasn't far behind. The cutter and splitter seem to be terrific pitches as well. I do wonder whether he should reduce the 4-seamer to an occasional keep-em-honest pitch, which is to say the new regime will either do that or (better, of course)) transform it into a solid pitch. It doesn't have a lot of movement.
BTW, if you saw his My Story, you know his makeup is impressive.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2024 3:55:33 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample. I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here.
I'm trying and failing to come up with a snappy answer here, given that the fact that pitchers tire as they pitch, to the point that they need to be removed from the game, is about as well established as the fact that there are four "bases" rather than three or five.
We do not need to look for another factor. The only question here is whether the only other factor that has been proposed -- that smaller pitch repertoires also contribute to the quality decay -- is correct or not.
So, I did quite a bit more number-crunching.
First, I calculated the collective drop-off of all my 74 qualifying guys. It's .032 worth of xwOBA. I then normalized all the individual numbers to that. Merrill Kelley, for instance, was .001 worse starting in the 4th inning, but compared to the average pitcher, he's .030 good (the other .001 is a rounding fluke).
I then decided to add guys to the database, and figured everyone that was .030 or more, good or bad, was a nice compromise, since adding the data by hand is a pain. It turns out that in both the good and bad sets, there is nobody between .030 and .026, so that was an obvious place to draw a line. So I now have data for 19 bad guys and 18 good ones.
Finally, I weighted the contribution of each pitcher to the aggregate performance of their group. That is, Houck's (normalized) .101 means that he makes about twice the contribution to the aggregate performance of the bad group that Max Scherxer does, at .049.
So I can derive the average pitch profile of the good and bad groups. These are the percentage of the time the average guy in the group throws his fave pitch, his sec fave, and so on.
GOOD 45 26 14 09 04 01 BAD 40 27 16 10 06 02
So the bad gang throws their fave pitch 11% less often than the good gang, and distributes the difference more or less equally across the reamonder.
The repertoire-size hypothesis predicts the opposite.
Given that the pitchers included have an average weight of .050 and the pitches not yet included are .015 ... you're just never going to get there.
It does make sense that pitches with fatigue try to compensate by mixing their pitchers more.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 13, 2024 11:41:03 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample. I agree with this. There are very few things in sports, especially when more than one person is involved in outcomes, that are single variate. Stamina certainly could be a contributing factor, but we'd need an agreed upon definition of "stamina" as it relates to pitching first. If teams (or even a team) did have such a definition and could convince pitchers, and especially starters, to wear biometric devices to measure the contributing factors that define stamina (such as heart rate, respiration, lactic acid build-up between pitches, etc.), then they would be able to see if there's at least a correlation within a specified sample (i.e. their pitchers). Even with this, however, we can't discount the inputs from batters, or even catchers or umpires (at least, the latter until RoboUmps are integrated and there's more consistency to the strike zone and calls throughout an at bat and the game). A stamina definition and real time measurements, however, would at least give teams a (presumably) significant factor to account for in-game adjustments using that factor alone. But I doubt pitchers/the union would agree to biometric measurements anytime soon as they might affect compensation in free agency or even arbitration.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 13, 2024 11:50:49 GMT -5
Stamina being the bigger problem makes sense to me because if it's familiarity which is the issue you have to assume batters forget everything they have learned from prior games. It's not like Houck hasn't been around long enough now that people haven't seen him before and have scouting reports.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2024 20:51:38 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch.
As opposed to Houck?.
Looking at innings 1 to 3 for both, Houck when he got injured versus Strider's whole season ...
Houck trailed Strider in xwOBA just .226 to .202, and (for what it's worth, but it's what most folks are looking at), topped him in wOBA, .183 to .223. Houck had a bit more than twice the gloveside run (11.5" to 5.6") and 3.1" more of downward movement (15.8" to 12.7", relative to the average FB). Overall, 40% more movement. Strider had a bit more velo, 85.7 to 84.0 (but Houck has more velo relative to his FB, and that may be the more important factor).. Further comparison is tougher, given that they used very different pitch-use strategies, and pitch usage of course affects results; for instance, it's well established that the more you throw a pitch, the less effective it becomes (the recent continued increase in SO is a function of everyone throwing their FB less often). Strider threw his slider 27% of the time vs. LHB and 41% vs. RHB; in contrast, Houck threw his slider … 28% vs. LHD and 42% vs. RHB. But what’s surrounding this coincidence (?) is very different, especially vs. LHB (57% for Strider, 51% for Houck). Strider went 62-27-19, 4Seam / Slider / Change, while Houck was 29-28-18-16-9, Cutter/ Slider / Splitter / 4Seam / Sinker. Lefties facing Strider have to look out for the FB, and in fact they did well in innings 1-3, .346 xwOBA, .347 wOBA. I think that with Houck, more hitters are guessing slider, and that’s going to inflate his xwOBA at least a bit. Strider was a pure 2-pitch guy vs. RHP, 58-41, and had a huge split --.331 / .345 with the FB and .162 / .171 with the slider. Again, I don’t think a RHB can afford to guess slider when he has to be hunting for a hittable fastball, which we know existed. Houck was 49-42-5-2-2, Sinker / Slider / 4Seam / Cutter / Splitter, which is to say, Strider's approach but with one in six FD replaced with one of three other pitches. (And it worked: 5 PA, .238 / .178.)
Strider is using his FB to make the slider more effective, which is a very common strategy. Houck is kind of on his own with the pitch, with more guesses available for the hitters. I won't dispute the claim that Strider's slider is baseball's best pitch in context, but I think there’s a good argument that Houck’s slider is better than Strider’s in a vacuum. That 40% extra movement – which puts him with the best-breaking slides on the planet – stands out in a way that Strider can’t match. Just imagine what slider results Houck could get if he had a 97 mph FB.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Mar 14, 2024 8:27:03 GMT -5
Pshaw. If you throws a slider in a vacuum it doesn't have any movement.
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Mar 14, 2024 8:29:42 GMT -5
So, pitchers who go more frequently to their strongest pitch later in the game are more effective? Pitchers like Houck who go to their strongest pitch less frequently later in the game are less effective? If those are true, then the most obvious answer is that guys like Houck should not be going to their less effective pitches later in the game. Because the less effective pitches just get hit more. (Or do they? Statcast can tell us.) (But in Houck's specific case we know that whatever they're actually doing isn't working at the game level. And he's the one I'm most interested in, obviously. ) But why does that third-time through degradation happen? I think we can learn more by asking How exactly does it happen? If it's "stamina" there would be an effect we can look for on the individual pitcher level. We'd probably be more comfortable saying stamina issues affected the third-time-through pitching if: a) The "best pitch" degraded over time, making it hittable the third time through the order. We'd look for less velocity. Less break. Less ability to locate those otherwise 'good' pitches - essentially teeing them up for hitters. (Statcast can tell us most of that, location being the most fiddly.) b) Tiredness is actually affecting pitch selection, meaning that the best pitches remained the same in their quality. . .but maybe fewer of them could be thrown in an AB due to fatigue. That's probably harder to distinguish from a philosophy of changing the pitch-mix the third time through the order. And that's really what we're interested in, in terms of assigning this to something purely physical instead of something that's tactical. I'd guess you'd probably look for back-to-back pitch patterns here - can the pitcher throw two or three "inning one" quality FBs (or whatever) in a row - or do they never do that? Even so, anything would most likely be an inference at best. But suggestive isn't valueless.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 23, 2024 9:34:05 GMT -5
Now I've seen where Crawford, Whitlock and Houck all worked on stamina this past off season. I don't know about Bello or Pivetta. His emergence this season is due to a multitude of factors. Here are a few: Improved strength and conditioning in the offseason that has allowed him to gain stamina with pitches and increase his pitch count; increased aggressiveness with pounding the zone; and, of course, the Andrew Bailey effect.
Boston’s new pitching coach is clearly getting the most out of his staff, which explains why the Red Sox are 13-10 despite dealing with a barrage of injuries.
In truth, though, a lot of what is happening with Crawford is progression through the experiences he’s gained. www.mlb.com/redsox/news/kutter-crawford-off-to-historic-start-to-2024-season
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Apr 23, 2024 12:21:57 GMT -5
Looks like Eric nailed it. And maybe that Ian read it here. Way to go soxpeospects.
|
|
|