Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: June USA Today / SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings Released


Pitching In

I was doing some research on Cards’ pitching over the years for another project I’m working on and thought I’d incorporate some of it into today’s thread. Tony and Dave Duncan arrived in St. Louis in 1996 and the team’s enjoyed a lot of success since they first set foot in the Gateway City. In 13 years, the team has won 6 division titles and won the Wild Card once. The team has been to the NLCS 6 times and the World Series twice, winning the World Championship once.

We’ve been fortunate over these 13 years to have some great hitters – from McGwire to Edmonds, to Pujols and Rolen. Though we haven’t been known for pitching the way we have been for hitting, we’ve had some pretty good pitching over the years and many Cards’ fans hold Dave Duncan in very high esteem.

I got curious about the team’s pitching over the 13 years Duncan’s been here. I was wondering which pitching stat most strongly correlated w/ the team’s success during his tenure. Could we use one stat more than another to predict our pitchers’ success under Dunc’s tutelage? For instance, we know that K rates correlate very strongly w/ pitching success but, though we’ve had some very good pitching over the years, we’ve never been toward the top of the league in strikeouts.

Here are the numbers I found for the last 13 years:

Year ERA FIP HR/9 BB/9 K/9 GB% GB/FB Wins
1997 3.88 3.89 0.77 3.31 6.99 47.1 1.61 73
2002 3.70 4.09 0.88 3.40 6.28 43.6 1.25 97
2005 3.49 4.09 0.95 2.76 6.06 50.7 1.71 100
2004 3.74 4.17 1.05 2.72 6.45 48.2 1.46 105
1998 4.32 4.40 0.92 3.42 5.95 45.5 1.46 83
2008 4.20 4.40 1.01 3.07 5.92 45.3 1.34 86
1996 3.98 4.46 1.07 3.34 6.51 45.4 1.36 88
2001 3.96 4.56 1.23 3.30 6.79 51.3 1.25 93
2007 4.67 4.66 1.05 3.19 5.92 43.5 1.16 78
1999 4.76 4.67 1.00 4.15 6.38 43.0 1.24 75
2003 4.62 4.75 1.29 3.12 5.96 41.1 1.13 85
2000 4.40 4.77 1.23 3.80 6.91 47.5 1.06 95
2006 4.54 4.77 1.21 3.17 6.11 46.3 1.35 83

I’m not that surprised that our good and bad seasons show mixed results from the mound. Some of our good years had relatively poor pitching and some of our bad seasons had pretty good pitching. I am somewhat surprised that our best pitching occurred in the season we lost the MOST games and that our worst pitching occurred in the season we won the World Series and in a season we won 95 games. I guess that speaks to the importance of hitting the baseball and fielding the baseball. And it can’t be ignored that in our best 3 seasons our pitchers had their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best seasons out of 13.

I did expect to see more of a correlation, however, between our GB rates and our best seasons. I (obviously) didn’t regress these numbers but, by eyeballing it, there appears to be some correlation between GB/FB and FIP but not necessarily between GB% and FIP. Figure that one out. There seems to also be surprisingly little correlation between walk rates and K rates and FIP as well. In fact, it appears as though the strongest correlation with our FIP is our pitchers’ home run rate. I’m not at all surprised by this correlation but I am surprised that there seems to be so little correlation w/ the other numbers. I would have expected pretty solid correlations with all of them.

In reviewing all these numbers, it wouldn’t surprise me if the biggest effect that Duncan has on our pitchers has been to reduce (or attempt to reduce) their homer rates. I’d have thought he would have more of an impact on walk rates as well. Maybe that’s true; we’ll just have to wait to find out. For now, though, the biggest key for our pitchers seems to have been the ability to keep the ball in the park. It’s not surprising at all the impact that reduced homer rates have but it is worth noting that HR/9 seems to have been the most predictive stat in determining Cards’ pitching success during Duncan’s reign in St. Louis.

BTW, what the hell’s going on with Trever Miller? The deal that was supposed to have been done a couple days ago still isn’t. I wonder if Bernie didn’t jump the gun a little on this story or is Miller getting cold feet?

1 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Miller

or maybe there’s something fishy with his physical. I’m with you Charles- don’t signings of 35 year old LOOGYs usually occur pretty quickly? Maybe he’s working on the no trade clause and negotiating backloading pay LOL

by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 23, 2008 7:17 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oh, and re: the topic

yeah, stats- go figure

after awhile I inevitably go back to Bull Durham- you throw the ball, you catch the ball, etc.

by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 23, 2008 7:25 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

cardinal pitching coaches

my opinion of Dunc is high, but so is my esteem for Whitey’s pitching coaches – Hub Kittle and Mike Roarke. Following the mostly pitching-less 70s, these two consistently got the most from talent – veterans like Bob Forsch, Jim Kaat and Ken Dayley – youngsters like Danny Cox, Rick Horton and Todd Worrell – and trade renovations like John Tudor and Joaquin Andujar…..yearly roster renovation on a tight budget with similar great results…… invention of the LOOGY…………..the pitching maximus of the 80s, often with “no names”, is often overlooked in the memories of Ozzie, Willie, et al

by Hinkster on Nov 23, 2008 8:11 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

strategy

and when you think about it, the strategy was not unlike today….DO NOT WALK BATTERS, keep the ball down in the zone, ground balls, use your defense……..maximize statistical match-ups…………pretty simple stuff……..when a guy balks, whether its Andy Rincon (1980s) or AR, they don’t last long

by Hinkster on Nov 23, 2008 8:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A few things I would add.

First off, the highest R-squared between any stat and a win is ERA at .74 if you exclude the first 2 years (they had to get their guys). But, as wins can sometime be realitive, I would be interested to see the wins of the other teams in the centrial division to see what share of those wins the Cardinals owned. Maybe draw some sort of comparison of how good any of these stats were in their division and compair. Because in baseball there are no absolutes, I doubt any good coorelations would come from just looking at 1 teams stats. Cool idea here.

by CJW on Nov 23, 2008 8:50 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

good analysis, chuckb

I always appreciate digging through some stats to come up with possible explainations for past performance. I think CJW’s suggestion for relative comparisons is a really good one. Of course, it involves some work. I think it might also be interesting to anlayze team defensive statistics for the recent past.

BTW, here is the correlation matrix:
ERA FIP HR/9 BB/9 K/9 GB% GB/FB
ERA 1.00
FIP 0.83 1.00
HR/9 0.45 0.82 1.00
BB/9 0.53 0.40 0.02 1.00
K/9 -0.28 -0.20 -0.03 0.34 1.00
GB% -0.63 -0.33 -0.01 -0.34 0.45 1.00
GB/FB -0.66 -0.77 -0.64 -0.50 -0.01 0.50 1.00
Wins -0.65 -0.24 0.19 -0.47 0.07 0.50 0.10

The highest correlation with wins is ERA at -0.65. BB/9 and GB% are close at -0.47 and 0.50. I think these are actually fairly significant. Looking at GB% relative to K/9 of 0.07, it is clear that data bears out Duncan’s “pitch to contact” philosophy. No surprise that FIP and ERA, and FIP and HR/9 are highly correlated.

Summary stats: (nothing leaps out at me)
ERA FIP HR/9 BB/9 K/9 GB% GB/FB Wins

Mean 4.17 4.44 1.05 3.29 6.33 46.04 1.34 87.77
S.E. 0.11 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.82 0.05 2.71
Median 4.20 4.46 1.05 3.30 6.28 45.50 1.34 86.00
Std. Dev. 0.41 0.30 0.15 0.38 0.38 2.95 0.19 9.77
Var 0.17 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.15 8.72 0.04 95.36
Kurtosis -1.30 -1.00 -0.68 1.36 -1.03 -0.26 -0.07 -0.81
Skewness -0.10 -0.51 -0.04 0.76 0.59 0.31 0.57 0.19
Range 1.27 0.88 0.52 1.43 1.07 10.20 0.65 32.00
Minimum 3.49 3.89 0.77 2.72 5.92 41.10 1.06 73.00
Maximum 4.76 4.77 1.29 4.15 6.99 51.30 1.71 105.00

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Nov 23, 2008 11:55 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

gb and bb/9

groundball is a good predictor of team wins with r = .50.

k/bb is even a tad better, with an r = .56 (p < .05). It holds up well in various regressions (using combinations of hr rate, bb rate, k rate, gb rate, gb/fb, and k/bb)*. The question is whether k/bb is a thing in itself, or two things? The effect is driven more by bb rate than by k rate when you decompose the variable; this makes sense beceause the bb rate varies more than k rate from year to year. Duncan’s staff is often near the top of the league in limiting bbs. He can probably receive some credit for that. And when they don’t, the Cardinals lose.

The 1990s teams averaged 3.55 bb/9 and a gb rate of 45; the 2000s teams have averaged 3.18 bb/9 and a gb rate of 46. I think the bb/9 rate is the more dramatic shift for the 2000 teams.

*Mandatory (pre-emptive) caveat. Small sample for inferential statistics. Coefficients are unbiased but unreliable; don’t base million dollar decisions on them.

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 3:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wow

Finally. I finally understand FIP. I have to admit that although I have had an idea before of what it was, this box has cleared up the jumble that the definition of FIP had put into my brain.

Well done.

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 23, 2008 10:17 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's pretty simple

Determine exactly the opposite of what the Mariners have done over the past few years.

Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist

by joker24 on Nov 23, 2008 8:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and between BTB and Statcorner

I think that I mostly have that one down too.

see, I did have a productive weekend

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 23, 2008 10:14 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I hope this deal falls through

You should never give a pitcher like Miller two years.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 23, 2008 12:45 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's never Lupus

You love House as much as I do?

We were just talking about the other day. Cameron once again suggested it was Lupus and I said to my wife: “Why the hell does she say that every time? Does she think everyone’s body is trying to kill them?”

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 23, 2008 11:56 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not a huge Miller fan...

but I think we could do worse. Though, Beimel may be the more attractive option out there…except he wants a 3-year deal. I haven’t looked into it, but I can’t imagine very many 3-year LOOGY deals that went well.

by dj tanner on Nov 23, 2008 7:31 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Beimel has jacked up stats

His good numbers are only held up by the fact that he gave up close to no home runs the last two years which does not match his career track record. When that goes back to norm he will not be such a good idea.

Stat Whore

by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 23, 2008 8:37 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

GB/FB versus FIP

I would assume that’s because the GB/FB rate more closely tracks your HR rate (since it includes FB) than GB% does.

And I think some of this data shows the weakness of FIP—the GB% and the ERA both seem to do a much better job of tracking team success than the FIP does. The batted ball data, I would think would be one of the things that Duncan would influence, and perhaps ignoring it for guys pitching to contact is leaving out a lot of the relevant data.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Nov 23, 2008 2:59 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

although I know many of you understand statistics

real well, and r values, etc…make a lot of sense to you it makes me think to much. I took your table and sorted it by wins. I then took the average of the worst six years (avg 79.5 wins) and the best six years (avg 96.3 wins) in each category I threw out the middle year. Not surprisingly the highest correlation to winning was ERA at 4.47 in the worst years and 3.88 in the best (.59 difference). What surprised me though was that FIP only had a difference of .16 (4.36 vs. 4.52) – Does this mean the real difference maker for our team has been defense? It seems to me the key to winning has been having our ERA average .47 runs better than our FIP.

by cardzfanbub on Nov 23, 2008 5:52 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The other categories...

YEARS……HR/9…BB/9…K/9….GB%…GB/FB
WORST 6…1.04…3.39…6.21…44.4…1.33
BEST 6…….1.07…3.22…6.5….47.8….1.35
DIFFER…….-.03….17….-.19….-3.4….-.02

All of the periphs were better in the good years, but none by a HUGE margin that would account for 17 losses turned to wins.

by cardzfanbub on Nov 23, 2008 6:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yeah

it just looks like you improve the GB% a little bit and the walks per 9, and it does wonders

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Nov 24, 2008 1:06 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

"defense"

that would make a whole lot of sense. Defense, and luck, of course.

god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs

by SleepyCA on Nov 23, 2008 6:21 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm kinda confused why everyone is looking for

some monster correlation between ERA or FIP or any pitching statistic and wins. Besides the fact that there’s a significant luck component in each season, pitching is about 40% of the equation. Now something like ERA will correlate well because (to some extent) it includes defense making it account for about 50% of the equation. No one’s going to find a .7 r^2 though. Can’t wring water from a rock.

by azruavatar on Nov 23, 2008 8:00 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm kinda confused

by your response Az. Chuckb made a table and eye-balled some relationships for correlations. A few people went a step further. No one has reported any adjusted R-squareds. They’ve just gone one step further than Chucb. Is your confustion with Chuckb’s post, or the people who went one step further?

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 9:05 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

actually

if people were looking for some sort of connection in my post to any particular pitching stat and wins, that wasn’t my intention. I was sort of surprised by the fact that we won so few games in the year in which we pitched best and won so many in 2 of the seasons we pitched worst, but I made no inference that FIP or K/9 or anything else was connected to wins. The wins column was only there for informational purposes.

What I tried to do is connect any of the other peripheral stats to FIP — that’s why I had FIP sorted from lowest to highest and we could see that as FIP went up, so too did HR/9. GB/FB went down (basically) as FIP went up. The mention of wins was solely to satisfy curiosity — not to draw sabermetric inferences.

by chuckb on Nov 23, 2008 9:41 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think your post posed...

an interesting question about what predicts wins. It’s okay to play around with data—as long as no one claims too much. No one did.

A note on the FIP discussion. Here’s the FIP formula (as used at THT):

(HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)*3-K*2)/IP

Since FIP is constructed from HR, BB, and K, I’m not sure what can be learned by looking at FIP and peripherals across seasons. They’re going to be related because they’re part of the formula.

Also, ERA is going to be a better predictor of wins than FIP since it actually counts runs scored (except for unearned runs). FIP is constructed from peripherals and has to be worse than ERA at predicting wins since it is more indirect. There’s no mystery there.

I do think it is interesting to see which raw peripherals help explain wins. The low BB rate in the 2000s has been one of Duncan’s main signatures.

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 10:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

FIP and peripherals

Because FIP is constructed from HR, BB, and K, they are all significant predictors of FIP in this small 12 season sample (all ps < .01):

HR coefficient=1.5
BB = .40
K = -.27

I note this because it is necessary and not interesting. They are strongly related to FIP because they are part of the formula of FIP.

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 10:44 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

BTW, the regression's adj-R-squared is .92 (14 seasons)

Once again, examining the relationship between FIP and the peripherals is not interesting (whether in a table or a formula) because it is a mathematical necessity —HR, BB, and K are part of the FIP formula and have to be related to FIP. (The regression of FIP on the peripherals recovers the coefficients in the formula almost perfectly in these 14 data points: 1 HR has 4 times the impact of 1 BB, which has 3:2 times the impact of 1 K.)

The premise of the original post—to look at what correlates with FIP across 14 seasons—is like predicting batting average from hits, Ks, groundouts and flyouts. A table will show that hits predict higher BA, and the rest predict a lower BA. You’ll also get a great R-squared if you run a regression on them. But the main thing you will have done is rediscovered the formula used to calculate BA.

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 11:22 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

read above

they are looking for correlations.

by azruavatar on Nov 23, 2008 10:42 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Chuckb himself was "looking for correlations"...

Az, I think your confusion is with Chuckb. Here’s his quotes:

"I did expect to see more of a correlation, however, between our GB rates and our best seasons. I (obviously) didn’t regress these numbers but, by eyeballing it, there appears to be some correlation between GB/FB and FIP but not necessarily between GB% and FIP. Figure that one out. There seems to also be surprisingly little correlation between walk rates and K rates and FIP as well. For now, though, the biggest key for our pitchers seems to have been the ability to keep the ball in the park. It’s not surprising at all the impact that reduced homer rates have but it is worth noting that HR/9 seems to have been the most predictive stat in determining Cards’ pitching success during Duncan’s reign in St. Louis. "

Point 1: There was a correlation of .5 between GB and wins.

Point 2: There was a relationship between walk rates, K rates, and FIP….because there have to be. It’s a formula.

Point 3: There need be no relationship between GB and FIP because GB is not part of the FIP formula.

by ncgostl on Nov 23, 2008 10:47 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

do i really need to link to the other comments on this page where people were looking for correlations?

You posted a comment with that yourself. So chuck was to. . . ok, what’s your point? I’m not saying people can’t/shouldn’t look for correlations just that we’re looking at a very small piece of the puzzle and there’s not a stat in that table in and of itself that will have a tremendously strong correlation.

Of course ERA is going to track wins better than FIP. FIP is predictive, ERA is descriptive. Neither summarizes the total outlook though. Correlations are going to a) be hard to eyeball and b) be inconclusive based on 7 years of data from one team.

I don’t understand what you are questioning or disagreeing with. My confusion isn’t with the post it’s with what you are trying to articulate.

by azruavatar on Nov 24, 2008 12:04 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Az

1) You brought up the issue of lookinng for a strong correlation. No one else did.

2) ChuckB missed a strong relationship between GB and wins. Several people ran the correlation to show that it is there.

3) Why criticize people for running correlations given that ChuckB started the thread on “eye-balled” correlations? The next step is to run them.

4) ChuckB himself failed to see an obvious, logical set of relationships between FIP, HR, BB, and K. They are there because they are part of the formula. He overlooked the fact that FIP is calculated directly from HR, BB, and K. (see above) That’s a problem with today’s post that you could have focused on.

My question to you is, why are you not consistent in your critique of commenters and Chuckb alike? Chuckb started the post looking at relationships between peripherals, FIP, and wins. Others followed.

by ncgostl on Nov 24, 2008 12:16 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

1) totallsor was looking at highest correlations (not calling him out; citing an example)

2) great. I left my gold stars in my other pair of pants but I’ll put one on their chart I keep to see who wins a prize.

3) Where did I criticize anyone for running them? I thought that they were looking for the wrong thing or things that weren’t really there based on the sample size but if people want to find r values — be my guest.

4) Again, gold stars for those individuals. I’ll add them to the chart later.

I think you are reading WAY too much into my comments. There’s certainly relationships between these statistics and wins but it’s a very small portion of the overall equation. It seemed to me that people were looking for something more; I said that there were issues with taking it too far. I never differentiated between chuck or other posters (so if you’re driving at cronyism, again not sure what you are getting at, that’s not the case) and have no problem disagreeing with main page posters.

If you think there’s something nefarious or overly critical in my initial comment that wasn’t it’s intent (nor am I able to infer it when re-reading it) but I don’t have anything else to say on this matter.

by azruavatar on Nov 24, 2008 6:37 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Az

It is about your tone, which you use frequently. It’s dismissive. Here are some of your earlier quotes:

“some monster correlation between ERA or FIP or any pitching statistic and wins.”

Who mentioned monster correlation?

“Besides the fact that there’s a significant luck component in each season, pitching is about 40% of the equation. Now something like ERA will correlate well because (to some extent) it includes defense making it account for about 50% of the equation. No one’s going to find a .7 r^2 though.”

No one was trying.

" Can’t wring water from a rock."

There was water. See above.

You have a tendency to act as if your knowledge of statistics is the be-all and end-all of any conversation. It’s offputting.

by ncgostl on Nov 24, 2008 7:01 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

did not intend to wring H2O

My initial post was just trying to describe the data a bit more, quantitatively. No inference was intended.

However, since I have the handle “totalloser”, being called out is no problem at all. :)

born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red

by totalloser on Nov 24, 2008 4:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

For some reason

I never processed the words that make up your moniker.

by azruavatar on Nov 24, 2008 9:09 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In fact

(referring to post below) I make that point — "I guess that speaks to the importance of hitting the baseball and fielding the baseball. " I tried to connect, as I say below, the stats to FIP and I just included the wins column to satisfy mine (and others’ ) curiosities.

by chuckb on Nov 23, 2008 9:44 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

miller

what’s the hold up…the physical? he’ll probably get 2 years so its not the length. something is fishy about this; the deal was supposed to be done by now.

http://www.redbirdramblings.wordpress.com

waiting for the 2009 season to begin!
www.redbirdramblings.wordpress.com

by cards4life on Nov 23, 2008 8:02 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree...

see my post up top after chuckb’s thoughts.

I can’t imagine it has anything to do with the potential snags we often see with top shelf free agents. Miller is a 35 year old LOOGY after all and probably not even the best LOOGY on this year’s market.

I’m wondering about the physical as well.

Maybe we’re just being paranoid and nothing is amiss. If Monday comes and goes with no word one way or another then I’ll be REALLY curious about why this comparatively minor deal isn’t yet done.

Paranoia or not, I think this delay is somewhat atypical of players in Miller’s position.

by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 24, 2008 1:10 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Start posting about the Cardinals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Stl_ia_card_45_-_dark_small
Bernie *loves* RBIs as a measuring stick for offensive talent
Photo_29_small
The hiatal hernia (Or why you should stop worrying)
Small
DeRosa a LOOGY?
Small
The rotation and the rest of the year
3341_633586789887_5605975_37208363_4035095_n_small
Off-day Musings Vol. II - First to 40, But Not Zirconium

Recent FanPosts

Small
" YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME"
Small
The pitches the Cardinals throw.
Small
Five players I'm watching in July
Images_small
Nothing Short of a Machine: Albert Pujols (nice article i found)
Kmaccooler-01_small
Ank vs. Dunc: Who Would Get Voted Off?
Images_small
Every Cardinal Matters Segment: Request
Small
Addition by subtraction
Jesus_pariah_small
What about #61?
Cards_dl_-_01_small
Game 80 Overflow
Cigar_small
Why put so much stock in the Farm?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bender_small azruavatar

Adam1_small chuckb

Ulquiorra2_small the red baron

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports