Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 21, 2016 4:51:05 GMT -5
But that's the current game. And yes, the Giants blew a lot of saves/teams miss the postseason because of bad bullpens, but one guy doesn't magically provide a shitload of wins like your average player does. Trevor Hoffman was a great reliever, but he only threw over 80 innings three times (compared to Mo Rivera's 7) and only had 2+ WAR 6 times (as opposed to Mo Rivera's 12). If you combine the fact that he pretty much wasn't elite all that often, has nothing in the postseason and was mostly just consistently GOOD rather than great...I just can't buy it. You have to be REALLY special as a reliever to be hall worthy, and that's not Trevor Hoffman. That's Mo Rivera. And seriously, Bud Selig is getting into the hall of fame and there are dozens of dirty ass players already in. This moral need to leave off dudes who took PEDs is really pointless. The fact it's the current game DOES play a role in the Hall of Fame inductions, though. If you're going to say that relief pitchers don't belong in the Hall of Fame because what they bring to the current game of baseball isn't good enough for the Hall of Fame, then it stands to reason that NO PITCHER, PERIOD, should ever go in the Hall of Fame ever again solely because the current game means that no starting pitcher will ever measure up to the standards of starting pitchers in the past eras due to pitch counts and the very nature of strong bullpens in this day and age. As the players of this era get on the ballot, the need to measure modern players by the current game has to be added to the Hall of Fame voting. That means- hold starting pitchers to the standards of today, induct top-tier relievers (including both Rivera AND Hoffman, and many other top closers at that), induct designated hitters like Edgar Martinez, induct players like Larry Walker who played for the Rockies...and yes, induct PED users.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 21, 2016 7:30:57 GMT -5
These weird criteria that seems to exist for the Hall drive me nuts. Let me see if I can figure out the disqualifications.
First, drug use, fine I get that. Second, unsubstantiated or simply murmur rumors about drug use (Ivan Rodruquez). Third, some positions that the sport or league requires are almost banned from the Hall (DH and relief pitching are always argued).
I get the drug use grumbles, although given that we have a convicted drug smuggler in the hall of fame, it's still hypocritical, even moreso when you add in that lots of guys openly admitted to popping amphetamines left and right and are in the hall. The position bias is rediculous though since if people said "No, I'm not playing any position that doesnt' give me a good chance at the Hall would be widely seen as morons for passing a chance to play for so much money. l
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 21, 2016 9:31:39 GMT -5
I hate these baseball discussions, because they turn into politics. Two large groups of the old guard with their counting stats and MVPs and the new guard with "Well, let me look at the WAR Bible, ahhh yes right here, you're wrong!" There's more to the picture of a player's entire career than that.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 21, 2016 10:25:36 GMT -5
I hate these baseball discussions, because they turn into politics. Two large groups of the old guard with their counting stats and MVPs and the new guard with "Well, let me look at the WAR Bible, ahhh yes right here, you're wrong!" There's more to the picture of a player's entire career than that. I can see both sides, weird as that sounds to the Hall voters. If there is a number, and there is, that says "He does X for his team compared to other people that play his position", then that's pretty special. Also, if a guy has some epic counting stats, I think that should be given equal importance. Sure we have the whole "steroid era" thing, and that makes numbers look different, or feel different, or whatever, but at the end of the day all a guy can do is play his position with a team, do it well, and if we have a number that says "He does his assigned thing better than other people that did that same assigned thing" then that's cool. I get the anti-DH thing in the sense that "We want guys that play both sides of the ball", but if a manager's job is to assign a guy to what will help a team win, then we have some points to consider. A defense only guy, a guy who by virtue of his one-sided or lopsided ability, can get in the hall and no one really bats an eye. A guy can hit between .250 and .270, and if he either plays good defense or, when he does hit the ball he hits it really far, and that's a big plus for him. Yet if that same guy plays in the league with a DH, that says each team has to have one, and he hits 30 to 40 points higher in his career, then that's some flaw because he didn't tell his manager no. Tossing one name out there, Luis Aparicio, in the hall and people didn't grumble so much. Offensively, he hit doubles as his main talent. Homers, triples, he got 175 total between the two, and it was split evenly. A doubles guy, he scored runs (83 per year) but didn't really drive them in all that well (49). Oh, and he managed to get on base 31 percent of the time, not batting average, but total, walks included.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 21, 2016 12:06:17 GMT -5
But that's the current game. And yes, the Giants blew a lot of saves/teams miss the postseason because of bad bullpens, but one guy doesn't magically provide a shitload of wins like your average player does. Trevor Hoffman was a great reliever, but he only threw over 80 innings three times (compared to Mo Rivera's 7) and only had 2+ WAR 6 times (as opposed to Mo Rivera's 12). If you combine the fact that he pretty much wasn't elite all that often, has nothing in the postseason and was mostly just consistently GOOD rather than great...I just can't buy it. You have to be REALLY special as a reliever to be hall worthy, and that's not Trevor Hoffman. That's Mo Rivera. And seriously, Bud Selig is getting into the hall of fame and there are dozens of dirty ass players already in. This moral need to leave off dudes who took PEDs is really pointless. The fact it's the current game DOES play a role in the Hall of Fame inductions, though. If you're going to say that relief pitchers don't belong in the Hall of Fame because what they bring to the current game of baseball isn't good enough for the Hall of Fame, then it stands to reason that NO PITCHER, PERIOD, should ever go in the Hall of Fame ever again solely because the current game means that no starting pitcher will ever measure up to the standards of starting pitchers in the past eras due to pitch counts and the very nature of strong bullpens in this day and age. As the players of this era get on the ballot, the need to measure modern players by the current game has to be added to the Hall of Fame voting. That means- hold starting pitchers to the standards of today, induct top-tier relievers (including both Rivera AND Hoffman, and many other top closers at that), induct designated hitters like Edgar Martinez, induct players like Larry Walker who played for the Rockies...and yes, induct PED users. I'm saying in general the impact that relievers bring is minimal because it is. The idea that freaking Trevor Hoffman should get in before Edgar Martinez is absurd, to bring up a point. Trevor Hoffman was a specialist, known for being consistently good and sometimes great but not all that often. If you want to put a specialist in, they better have been consistently great or elite. Hoffman was not that. Also, WAR bible might be the worst way to phrase the embracing of new statistics to evaluate players.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 21, 2016 12:50:06 GMT -5
The fact it's the current game DOES play a role in the Hall of Fame inductions, though. If you're going to say that relief pitchers don't belong in the Hall of Fame because what they bring to the current game of baseball isn't good enough for the Hall of Fame, then it stands to reason that NO PITCHER, PERIOD, should ever go in the Hall of Fame ever again solely because the current game means that no starting pitcher will ever measure up to the standards of starting pitchers in the past eras due to pitch counts and the very nature of strong bullpens in this day and age. As the players of this era get on the ballot, the need to measure modern players by the current game has to be added to the Hall of Fame voting. That means- hold starting pitchers to the standards of today, induct top-tier relievers (including both Rivera AND Hoffman, and many other top closers at that), induct designated hitters like Edgar Martinez, induct players like Larry Walker who played for the Rockies...and yes, induct PED users. I'm saying in general the impact that relievers bring is minimal because it is. The idea that freaking Trevor Hoffman should get in before Edgar Martinez is absurd, to bring up a point. Trevor Hoffman was a specialist, known for being consistently good and sometimes great but not all that often. If you want to put a specialist in, they better have been consistently great or elite. Hoffman was not that. Also, WAR bible might be the worst way to phrase the embracing of new statistics to evaluate players. Regarding specialists, I'll be honest I broaden my definition. A closer specializes in getting the last few outs, preventing the rally. The DH can be seen as one because their job is to hit in place of the pitcher. Thing is, to me a guy who hits for lots of power but also strikes out or doesn't get hits at a clip above 27 percent of the time is also a specialist. Yet somehow that specialty to hit balls really far sometimes while failing to get a hit 75 percent of the time is seen as an "elite" skill, though again it's still a specialization. I'm not exactly a "small hall" guy, but if the writers are going to start saying "well, this guy and this guy are disqualified because even though they played their position super well we just don't think that position or job is worthy of enshrinement" then I'd branch it out. You're a power guy, fine, but if you're a power hitter who free swings and racks up K's then I'd say that should get the same scrutiny, and if we want to be baseball snobs, then start dropping players from the hall. Give me a .262 career hitter with lots of power, and I say "it's nice, but forget the hall". You throw in a hitter who didn't walk much, struck out lots, but had "big moments in big situations" and it's a nice story, but not much else.
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Dec 21, 2016 14:47:56 GMT -5
The closer is the one of the most overrated positions in the history of sports. Can it be important? You better believe it. Overrated though, among the top in that regard. The epic aura attached to a pitcher who can get three outs is ridiculous. It's WWE logic. Here is a guy hand-selected for that role. Hundreds of guys who could do it if given the chance. And also, the lefty vs lefty and righty vs righty strat is gospel with managers, but then "closers," and that logic flies out the window because "he's our closer." The history of a guy who can't hit squat against a certain pitcher ... out the window because "closer." The three inning save is just as plausible as this miraculous closer crap. Lots of guys who have padded stats because of a title, not because they did something that wasn't already being handled by the bullpen up until the point that cheesy entrance music hits and everyone starts to bow to the guy that's the recipient of what was handed to him.
If you're up three runs or two runs, you shouldn't be a god because you somehow managed to keep two or three runs from scoring in an inning. That's your job, not your calling card for greatness over guys with 1.00-2.50 ERAs who are doing it without any notoriety.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 21, 2016 19:12:37 GMT -5
The closer is the one of the most overrated positions in the history of sports. Can it be important? You better believe it. Overrated though, among the top in that regard. The epic aura attached to a pitcher who can get three outs is ridiculous. It's WWE logic. Here is a guy hand-selected for that role. Hundreds of guys who could do it if given the chance. And also, the lefty vs lefty and righty vs righty strat is gospel with managers, but then "closers," and that logic flies out the window because "he's our closer." The history of a guy who can't hit squat against a certain pitcher ... out the window because "closer." The three inning save is just as plausible as this miraculous closer crap. Lots of guys who have padded stats because of a title, not because they did something that wasn't already being handled by the bullpen up until the point that cheesy entrance music hits and everyone starts to bow to the guy that's the recipient of what was handed to him. If you're up three runs or two runs, you shouldn't be a god because you somehow managed to keep two or three runs from scoring in an inning. That's your job, not your calling card for greatness over guys with 1.00-2.50 ERAs who are doing it without any notoriety. The closer IS an overrated position, and we have seen that saves are the easiest stat to find since Moneyball began (when one of Billy Beane's early methods to build it up was: Find a middle reliever of no acclaim, make them the closer, see them get a 30-40 save season, then trade them for prospects.) However, these things actually HELP people like Trevor Hoffman or similar people with high save totals' cases. The "closer" position basically came from the concept of "this guy is OUR BEST RELIEVER. If he comes in the game, he's our best chance of keeping the win. By logic, we should save him for when we need to assure the victory." With that fact alone, that inherently says that any closer, by definition, would be one of the better relievers in the game in that year. It also stands to reason that someone like a Trevor Hoffman would be MORE HOF worthy, since he got all his saves and was a star because he managed to be a viable closer (and as such, one of the best relievers in the game) for 15-20 years, proving he had the longetivity to be considered an elite, HOF worthy person. If you say "well, saves ARE an overrated stat"...that just hurts Mariano Rivera's argument and strengthens Hoffman's. If you argue saves are overrated and have as much to do with how good your team is before the ninth inning so you can come in with entrance music for this finish...then by definition, wouldn't Mariano Rivera closing his entire career for the juggernaut Yankees be far less impressive than Hoffman doing almost as well for the comparatively lowly Padres?
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 21, 2016 22:55:08 GMT -5
The closer is the one of the most overrated positions in the history of sports. Can it be important? You better believe it. Overrated though, among the top in that regard. The epic aura attached to a pitcher who can get three outs is ridiculous. It's WWE logic. Here is a guy hand-selected for that role. Hundreds of guys who could do it if given the chance. And also, the lefty vs lefty and righty vs righty strat is gospel with managers, but then "closers," and that logic flies out the window because "he's our closer." The history of a guy who can't hit squat against a certain pitcher ... out the window because "closer." The three inning save is just as plausible as this miraculous closer crap. Lots of guys who have padded stats because of a title, not because they did something that wasn't already being handled by the bullpen up until the point that cheesy entrance music hits and everyone starts to bow to the guy that's the recipient of what was handed to him. If you're up three runs or two runs, you shouldn't be a god because you somehow managed to keep two or three runs from scoring in an inning. That's your job, not your calling card for greatness over guys with 1.00-2.50 ERAs who are doing it without any notoriety. The closer IS an overrated position, and we have seen that saves are the easiest stat to find since Moneyball began (when one of Billy Beane's early methods to build it up was: Find a middle reliever of no acclaim, make them the closer, see them get a 30-40 save season, then trade them for prospects.) However, these things actually HELP people like Trevor Hoffman or similar people with high save totals' cases. The "closer" position basically came from the concept of "this guy is OUR BEST RELIEVER. If he comes in the game, he's our best chance of keeping the win. By logic, we should save him for when we need to assure the victory." With that fact alone, that inherently says that any closer, by definition, would be one of the better relievers in the game in that year. It also stands to reason that someone like a Trevor Hoffman would be MORE HOF worthy, since he got all his saves and was a star because he managed to be a viable closer (and as such, one of the best relievers in the game) for 15-20 years, proving he had the longetivity to be considered an elite, HOF worthy person. If you say "well, saves ARE an overrated stat"...that just hurts Mariano Rivera's argument and strengthens Hoffman's. If you argue saves are overrated and have as much to do with how good your team is before the ninth inning so you can come in with entrance music for this finish...then by definition, wouldn't Mariano Rivera closing his entire career for the juggernaut Yankees be far less impressive than Hoffman doing almost as well for the comparatively lowly Padres? That last paragraph doesn't make sense. Mo Rivera was a consistently great reliever and one of the best postseason pitchers of all time, regardless of saves. Trevor Hoffman was a consistently good (occasionally great, not that often though) reliever and just racked up saves. Getting a lot of saves doesn't necessarily mean you played for great teams.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 21, 2016 23:42:52 GMT -5
That last paragraph doesn't make sense. Mo Rivera was a consistently great reliever and one of the best postseason pitchers of all time, regardless of saves. Trevor Hoffman was a consistently good (occasionally great, not that often though) reliever and just racked up saves. Getting a lot of saves doesn't necessarily mean you played for great teams. The reason the save stat is so overrated is it's the most team-connected of any single stat: You don't get saves unless your team was so good that you could get into a save situation. As such, players who play for good teams get more save opportunities than players for lesser teams, and Mo Rivera played for the Yankees dynasty his whole career- one of the best teams TO play for. Ditto the "postseason issue"...the postseason issue brings into mind the same issue for WAR Bible vs. regular, and there's a problem on both sides (The normal form says...yes, Mo Rivera should be a Hall of Famer. The WAR Bible says: Uh, postseason games are just another game, no more, no less...and honestly, a good closer SHOULD be a good postseason player since their whole career is built around success in clutch situations, so it's not exactly special Mariano Rivera, a player who was a closer basically his whole career, would be lionized because of postseason work for the Yankees...or that Hoffman, who wasn't a lights-out player, racked up saves for bad teams...but when the Padres did break through and made the playoffs, never exactly was prone to blown saves in the playoffs when the Padres DID make it...a GOOD sign for closers in the playoffs, since they will have a bullseye on themselves if the team blows a win late, and the goat reputation for it inevitably destroys the closer's confidence and makes sure they'll never be the same again. (In defense, that is actually a great sign for how great Mo Rivera WAS as a closer, because a lesser pitcher would have been DESTROYED after Rivera's multiple blown saves cost the Yankees the 2004 ALCS.)
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 22, 2016 2:16:40 GMT -5
That last paragraph doesn't make sense. Mo Rivera was a consistently great reliever and one of the best postseason pitchers of all time, regardless of saves. Trevor Hoffman was a consistently good (occasionally great, not that often though) reliever and just racked up saves. Getting a lot of saves doesn't necessarily mean you played for great teams. The reason the save stat is so overrated is it's the most team-connected of any single stat: You don't get saves unless your team was so good that you could get into a save situation. As such, players who play for good teams get more save opportunities than players for lesser teams, and Mo Rivera played for the Yankees dynasty his whole career- one of the best teams TO play for. Ditto the "postseason issue"...the postseason issue brings into mind the same issue for WAR Bible vs. regular, and there's a problem on both sides (The normal form says...yes, Mo Rivera should be a Hall of Famer. The WAR Bible says: Uh, postseason games are just another game, no more, no less...and honestly, a good closer SHOULD be a good postseason player since their whole career is built around success in clutch situations, so it's not exactly special Mariano Rivera, a player who was a closer basically his whole career, would be lionized because of postseason work for the Yankees...or that Hoffman, who wasn't a lights-out player, racked up saves for bad teams...but when the Padres did break through and made the playoffs, never exactly was prone to blown saves in the playoffs when the Padres DID make it...a GOOD sign for closers in the playoffs, since they will have a bullseye on themselves if the team blows a win late, and the goat reputation for it inevitably destroys the closer's confidence and makes sure they'll never be the same again. (In defense, that is actually a great sign for how great Mo Rivera WAS as a closer, because a lesser pitcher would have been DESTROYED after Rivera's multiple blown saves cost the Yankees the 2004 ALCS.) You keep bringing up this WAR bible thing as something against Rivera. He's an extreme special case for relievers because he was so good for so long, which is why people will give it to him. And while postseason success doesn't matter so much for guys who were great in the regular season, his utter postseason dominance is a huge point in his favor. Trevor Hoffman was adequate in his few innings, while Rivera was all time good in his. The point being with Trevor Hoffman is that he's just not great or elite. He was a very good reliever who had a lot of saves. That's not hall worthy.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 22, 2016 7:50:36 GMT -5
The reason the save stat is so overrated is it's the most team-connected of any single stat: You don't get saves unless your team was so good that you could get into a save situation. I disagree with that, wins is the most team connected stat. Thankfully, it's becoming more accepted that wins for a pitcher is pretty much a shit stat, and really has no bearing on how good a pitcher is.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 22, 2016 9:05:48 GMT -5
The fact it's the current game DOES play a role in the Hall of Fame inductions, though. If you're going to say that relief pitchers don't belong in the Hall of Fame because what they bring to the current game of baseball isn't good enough for the Hall of Fame, then it stands to reason that NO PITCHER, PERIOD, should ever go in the Hall of Fame ever again solely because the current game means that no starting pitcher will ever measure up to the standards of starting pitchers in the past eras due to pitch counts and the very nature of strong bullpens in this day and age. As the players of this era get on the ballot, the need to measure modern players by the current game has to be added to the Hall of Fame voting. That means- hold starting pitchers to the standards of today, induct top-tier relievers (including both Rivera AND Hoffman, and many other top closers at that), induct designated hitters like Edgar Martinez, induct players like Larry Walker who played for the Rockies...and yes, induct PED users. I'm saying in general the impact that relievers bring is minimal because it is. The idea that freaking Trevor Hoffman should get in before Edgar Martinez is absurd, to bring up a point. Trevor Hoffman was a specialist, known for being consistently good and sometimes great but not all that often. If you want to put a specialist in, they better have been consistently great or elite. Hoffman was not that. Also, WAR bible might be the worst way to phrase the embracing of new statistics to evaluate players. It's the most accurate way.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 22, 2016 9:19:54 GMT -5
I'm saying in general the impact that relievers bring is minimal because it is. The idea that freaking Trevor Hoffman should get in before Edgar Martinez is absurd, to bring up a point. Trevor Hoffman was a specialist, known for being consistently good and sometimes great but not all that often. If you want to put a specialist in, they better have been consistently great or elite. Hoffman was not that. Also, WAR bible might be the worst way to phrase the embracing of new statistics to evaluate players. It's the most accurate way. You're right, it's the most accurate way of evaluating players.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 22, 2016 9:25:12 GMT -5
It's the most accurate way. You're right, it's the most accurate way of evaluating players. Exactly! It's not this embracing of new stats (which I use all the time, especially for fantasy). It's this infallible trump card of quoting the scripture of WAR as this be-all, end-all of any discussion. That you throw out this trump card of a number and all else is irrelevant or inferior. And it's not just you, it's the whole WAR bible crowd. It's beyond pretentious. And the old guard is almost as bad, but they at least don't take it over the top like the WAR crowd does. Don't act like what I'm saying is wrong when you're proving it in the replies.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 22, 2016 14:14:08 GMT -5
The reason the save stat is so overrated is it's the most team-connected of any single stat: You don't get saves unless your team was so good that you could get into a save situation. I disagree with that, wins is the most team connected stat. Thankfully, it's becoming more accepted that wins for a pitcher is pretty much a shit stat, and really has no bearing on how good a pitcher is. Even wins is less team-connected than saves by that point. Yes, wins can be connected to the team- if your team has an explosive offense and you shell the opposing pitcher, then your own pitcher can throw a poor game and end up getting the win...but even then, a starting pitcher still has a lot of connection on the win (if they can give up less runs than the opponent does, then they still had a good bearing on the win.) By contrast, a save situation- by definition, is: Your team did incredibly well for most of the game without you even playing, allowing you to enter the game with a lead and making sure all you have to do is get the last few outs to lock it up. You really can't get more team-connected than that.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Dec 22, 2016 14:55:38 GMT -5
You're right, it's the most accurate way of evaluating players. Exactly! It's not this embracing of new stats (which I use all the time, especially for fantasy). It's this infallible trump card of quoting the scripture of WAR as this be-all, end-all of any discussion. That you throw out this trump card of a number and all else is irrelevant or inferior. And it's not just you, it's the whole WAR bible crowd. It's beyond pretentious. And the old guard is almost as bad, but they at least don't take it over the top like the WAR crowd does. Don't act like what I'm saying is wrong when you're proving it in the replies. I cited WAR twice. Once to prove how undeserving Hoffman is (because he absolutely is) and once to prove that pushing in Vlad over Walker doesn't make much sense. They're useful to bring up as a point of measurement, but they're not the be all end all. It's just blatant from using it in these two why it can be used. The old guard is a lot more wrong for not voting in the best player of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Ishmeal Loves Kaseyhausen on Dec 22, 2016 15:15:43 GMT -5
Bagwell Bonds Clemens Hoffman Pudge
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 22, 2016 17:50:24 GMT -5
Exactly! It's not this embracing of new stats (which I use all the time, especially for fantasy). It's this infallible trump card of quoting the scripture of WAR as this be-all, end-all of any discussion. That you throw out this trump card of a number and all else is irrelevant or inferior. And it's not just you, it's the whole WAR bible crowd. It's beyond pretentious. And the old guard is almost as bad, but they at least don't take it over the top like the WAR crowd does. Don't act like what I'm saying is wrong when you're proving it in the replies. I cited WAR twice. Once to prove how undeserving Hoffman is (because he absolutely is) and once to prove that pushing in Vlad over Walker doesn't make much sense. They're useful to bring up as a point of measurement, but they're not the be all end all. It's just blatant from using it in these two why it can be used. The old guard is a lot more wrong for not voting in the best player of all time. That I don't have a problem with. I just see it used as this cut and dry way of thinking, and it just undermines it as a tool and makes it an opinion. ISO, xFIP, UZR, wOBA, etc are good statistics. WAR is a good statistic itself, it's just that people put so much weight in it that it's almost ridiculous. And I think objectively people know what I'm talking about.
|
|
Fundertaker
El Dandy
Hideo Kojima should direct every ending ever!
Posts: 8,906
|
Post by Fundertaker on Dec 22, 2016 18:09:17 GMT -5
How many years can a player be in the ballot? Cause I want Edgar in. Griffey can't be in there without his wingman!
|
|