Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:20 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:15 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 96
1ST AND 2ND YOUNG UP AFTER AN AWFUL DAY AT THE PLATE YESTERDAY HE STILL REFUSES TO BUNT, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE UNTIL SOMEONE FIRES HIM!!! WE DIDNT SCORE YESTERDAY, SACRIFICE, FOR GOD SAKES I AM DONE WITH THIS TEAM.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
DoeyDoumit wrote:
1ST AND 2ND YOUNG UP AFTER AN AWFUL DAY AT THE PLATE YESTERDAY HE STILL REFUSES TO BUNT, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE UNTIL SOMEONE FIRES HIM!!! WE DIDNT SCORE YESTERDAY, SACRIFICE, FOR GOD SAKES I AM DONE WITH THIS TEAM.


And to top it all off, your damn caps lock key is broken again. Life is tough.

But, on the bright side, if you are done with this team, hopefully that means you won't have to take the time to post (idiotic) statements here anymore! :mrgreen:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:20 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 96
Hey moron please explain to me why my post is idiotic. The Pirates did not score a run yesterday!! they are facing a pitcher who owns them!! Delwyn Young is not a 3 Hitter, BUNT THE BASEBALL Jones groundout gets a run in. You are the retard, grow up and face facts that I am right, I am sure alot of people would agree you have to bunt there.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
DoeyDoumit wrote:
1ST AND 2ND YOUNG UP AFTER AN AWFUL DAY AT THE PLATE YESTERDAY HE STILL REFUSES TO BUNT, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE UNTIL SOMEONE FIRES HIM!!! WE DIDNT SCORE YESTERDAY, SACRIFICE, FOR GOD SAKES I AM DONE WITH THIS TEAM.


Russell still rightly refuses to bunt in that situation, and you are still a moron.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
IMO, a much stronger argument can be made to bunt Young in the 1st tonight versus Brandon Moss last night. Again, I would like to see the Bucs get in the scoring column early (the 'ol Leyland strategy). Indeed, if I was manager, I think that I would have seriously considered it tonight; if just to get the team off the schneid.

However, any suggestion that there is only one legitimate or logical play in that situation is flat out wrong. Its one thing to reasonably disagree. Its a wholly different matter to go apesh_t.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
No. 9 wrote:
IMO, a much stronger argument can be made to bunt Young in the 1st tonight versus Brandon Moss last night. Again, I would like to see the Bucs get in the scoring column early (the 'ol Leyland strategy). Indeed, if I was manager, I think that I would have seriously considered it tonight; if just to get the team off the schneid.

However, any suggestion that there is only one legitimate or logical play in that situation is flat out wrong. Its one thing to reasonably disagree. Its a wholly different matter to go apesh_t.


I agree. They should have had Delwyn Young bunt tonight.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 4768
Location: Pittsburgh
DoeyDoumit wrote:
Hey moron please explain to me why my post is idiotic.

Bunting in the first inning is idiotic, ergo....

Quote:
The Pirates did not score a run yesterday!!

And that has what to do with today?

Quote:
they are facing a pitcher who owns them!!

Who also happens to be one of the best defensive pitchers I've ever seen, making a successful bunt even less likely.

Quote:
Delwyn Young is not a 3 Hitter,

Aside from 1992, neither was Andy Van Slyke. I don't remember seeing him bunt much. But you are right about one thing. Delwyn Young is not a 3 hitter.

Quote:
BUNT THE BASEBALL

SCORE LESS RUNS

Quote:
Jones groundout gets a run in.

If Delwyn Young is not a 3 hitter, what kind of 4 hitter is Jones? Hey, maybe we're onto something here. The Pirates have a 5 or 6 hitter in the 3 slot, and a part time 7 hitter (if not career minor leaguer) in the 4 spot. Maybe, just MAYBE, they aren't scoring runs BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOOD HITTERS.

Quote:
You are the retard, grow up and face facts that I am right,

Yes, we can tell that you're right because of all those big sacrifice bunt totals that number 3 hitters have been racking up throughout the history of baseball.

Quote:
I am sure alot of people would agree you have to bunt there.

And I am sure, and this has been confirmed by 12 years on the internet talking to people from all walks of life, that a lot of people are fairly stupid.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:05 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Colin21 wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
IMO, a much stronger argument can be made to bunt Young in the 1st tonight versus Brandon Moss last night. Again, I would like to see the Bucs get in the scoring column early (the 'ol Leyland strategy). Indeed, if I was manager, I think that I would have seriously considered it tonight; if just to get the team off the schneid.

However, any suggestion that there is only one legitimate or logical play in that situation is flat out wrong. Its one thing to reasonably disagree. Its a wholly different matter to go apesh_t.


I agree. They should have had Delwyn Young bunt tonight.


Same I would bunt Young. Some of these calls by Russel are questionable.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Ryann wrote:
Same I would bunt Young. Some of these calls by Russel are questionable.

If you think that bunting in that situation was a proper move, then I'd say your judgment is pretty questionable.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:50 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Willton wrote:
Ryann wrote:
Same I would bunt Young. Some of these calls by Russel are questionable.

If you think that bunting in that situation was a proper move, then I'd say your judgment is pretty questionable.


If you keep backing up every move made by a team 9 games under .500 on their way to 17 straight losing seasons I would say your judgement is questionable.

You HAVE to but in that situation get runs on the board early, and especially if you have delwyn young up.

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Ryann wrote:
Willton wrote:
Ryann wrote:
Same I would bunt Young. Some of these calls by Russel are questionable.

If you think that bunting in that situation was a proper move, then I'd say your judgment is pretty questionable.


If you keep backing up every move made by a team 9 games under .500 on their way to 17 straight losing seasons I would say your judgement is questionable.

You HAVE to but in that situation get runs on the board early, and especially if you have delwyn young up.

Getting runs early is beneficial, but bunting does not achieve that end. All it does is give the defense the out that it's looking for. Yes, runners advance a base, but now there are fewer opportunities in which to score those runners because the batter intentionally got out.

All bunting does is limit the chances of scoring many runs in order to increase the chance of scoring only one run. However, most games are not decided by one run, and at the beginning of the game, you have no idea how many runs are going to be necessary to win the game. The Pirates should never be playing for one run in the 1st inning; doing so only limits their chances of winning the game.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 3173
Location: Darlington, Pennsylvania
Willton wrote:
Ryann wrote:
Same I would bunt Young. Some of these calls by Russel are questionable.

If you think that bunting in that situation was a proper move, then I'd say your judgment is pretty questionable.


Normally i would say it isn't the move to make, but with the luck we have had against Hampton i think we should have had Young bunt. It would have been 2nd and 3rd with 1 out and a very good chance to draw first blood.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:25 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
DEJA VU INDEED!

Most of the posters will understand what this means.

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5335
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Willton wrote:

All bunting does is limit the chances of scoring many runs in order to increase the chance of scoring only one run.


And not scoring a run in the first inning after getting consecutive walks off of a pitcher who has historically dominated your team sets an ominous tone for the remainder of the game.

In any event, I simply don't agree that historical run expectancy charts have any relevance to last night's lineup. If you are truly interested in conducting strategic analysis based upon maximizing run opportunities, turning a blind eye to who is playing the game is - IMO - a mistake. Someone please educate me what the statistical run expectancy is for runners on first and second with no outs versus runners on second and third with one out with Garrett Jones, Andy LaRoche and Steve Pearce coming to the plate.

Me . . . I have absolutely zero confidence that last night's lineup was going to put up a bunch of crooked numbers against Mike Hampton. Me . . . I try to scratch and claw for runs whenever the opportunity presented itself last night. Give me the Cubs lineup, the Brewers lineup and even the Astros lineup and there is no way that I would consider bunting out of the 3 hole last night. But with Delwyn Young, Garrett Jones, Steve Pearce and Ramon Vasquez all in the lineup . . . uuuugh . . . I'd be looking to "manufacture" runs instead of waiting around for these guys to string three, four, five hits in a row. Could it happen? Sure. Likely? Hardly.

Also . . . given last night's lineup . . . how is bunting Young a "one run" strategy? With runners on second and third and one out, a hit from Jones or LaRoche scores two runs. With runners on first and second and no outs, you would need to string together two hits from Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce to score two runs (unless one of them gets an extra base hit). Is anyone willing to bet serious money (right now with the way that this team is hitting) that there was a greater liklihood that the combination of Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce would get two hits versus the possibility of Jones or LaRoche getting one hit? I'm not.

So . . . yes . . . bunting Young makes it less likely that you score 3 or more runs. I don't agree that it makes it less likely that you score 2 runs. In fact, I'd argue that - with last night's lineup - your best chance of scoring 2 runs in the first inning is to bunt Young. And, simultaneously, you increase the chances of scoring at least one run. Thus, I would certainly understand anyone advocating increasing the chances of scoring one run, putting 2 runs on the board with a single and sacrificing the chances at a 3, 4, or 5 run inning - given that lineup.

Here's my hypothetical (and before anyone jumps down my throat about run expectancies, I MADE UP THESE NUMBERS):
Runners on first and second, no outs with Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce coming - all hitting away:
Chances of scoring a single run: 33%
Chances of scoring two runs: 15%
Chances of scoring more than two runs: 7%

Runners on second and third, one out with Jones, LaRoche and Pearce coming up:
Chances of scoring a single run: 75%
Chances of scoring two runs: 25%
Chances of scoring more than two runs: 2%

If (and I stress IF) those were accurate numbers based upon last night's lineup and based upon the pitcher that was on the mound . . . wouldn't even the statistically minded participants on this Board concede that there are valid and sound arguments for sacrificing Young at that point in the game? If you aren't willing to concede that point, then I challenge you to educate me as to where is the "tipping point?" Ie; at what point is the statistical liklihood of putting up multiple runs so remote that adopting a strategy to maximize scoring one run or two runs make statistical sense to you?

Yet, I don't fault anyone for having Young hit away in that situation. Judgment call. There are reasons for and reasons against. You take your chances. And last night . . . taking that chance proved to be a wasted scoring opportunity. Bad luck played a role with Jones' at-bat but who knows how the game would have played out with the Bucs scoring first.

But, hey, that's just me. Let the flogging begin . . .

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
No. 9 wrote:
Willton wrote:

All bunting does is limit the chances of scoring many runs in order to increase the chance of scoring only one run.


And not scoring a run in the first inning after getting consecutive walks off of a pitcher who has historically dominated your team sets an ominous tone for the remainder of the game.

In any event, I simply don't agree that historical run expectancy charts have any relevance to last night's lineup. If you are truly interested in conducting strategic analysis based upon maximizing run opportunities, turning a blind eye to who is playing the game is - IMO - a mistake. Someone please educate me what the statistical run expectancy is for runners on first and second with no outs versus runners on second and third with one out with Garrett Jones, Andy LaRoche and Steve Pearce coming to the plate.

Have a look:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQ ... t&resnum=1
Image
The above table was taken from Baseball Between the Numbers, the book shown in the link above. The table represents the maximum hitting ability a player can have in a particular situation in order for bunting to be a prudent strategy. As the book says, "[t]he results of the at-bats of actual major league hitters [from 2000-2005] were simulated and compared to the results if the same hitters sacrificed with the success rates described [in Table 4-2.3, shown in the link above by scrolling up one page]. By comparing the expected run scoring both before and after a successful sacrifice (and the following at bat) to the expected scoring if the batter swung away, "thresholds" of batting performance were determined. Any hitter batting below certain thresholds would benefit his team by sacrificing; any hitter above them would be costing his team a chance to score at least 1 run."

As for the run expectancies with those players you mentioned, ask Jaybee. He's better at that than I am.

Quote:
Me . . . I have absolutely zero confidence that last night's lineup was going to put up a bunch of crooked numbers against Mike Hampton. Me . . . I try to scratch and claw for runs whenever the opportunity presented itself last night. Give me the Cubs lineup, the Brewers lineup and even the Astros lineup and there is no way that I would consider bunting out of the 3 hole last night. But with Delwyn Young, Garrett Jones, Steve Pearce and Ramon Vasquez all in the lineup . . . uuuugh . . . I'd be looking to "manufacture" runs instead of waiting around for these guys to string three, four, five hits in a row. Could it happen? Sure. Likely? Hardly.

Well, as you saw, the game was not going to be won 1-0; the Astros scored more than one run in that game. So, "manufacturing" runs was not going to win the game; consecutive hitting was. You try for the strategy that will win you the game, not the one that will not win you the game.

Quote:
Also . . . given last night's lineup . . . how is bunting Young a "one run" strategy? With runners on second and third and one out, a hit from Jones or LaRoche scores two runs. With runners on first and second and no outs, you would need to string together two hits from Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce to score two runs (unless one of them gets an extra base hit). Is anyone willing to bet serious money (right now with the way that this team is hitting) that there was a greater liklihood that the combination of Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce would get two hits versus the possibility of Jones or LaRoche getting one hit? I'm not.

No, but I am willing to bet serious money that the Pirates would have had a better chance of getting one hit with three opportunities to do so instead of two. Bunting Young gives up one of those opportunities voluntarily. Further, once one of those players gets one hit, at least one runs scores and you have another opportunity to get another hit. The first hit is the most important one in that situation, and if you give up an opportunity to get it, you are lessening the likelihood that you will get that hit and score multiple runs, especially with players that you describe as "uuuugh".

Quote:
So . . . yes . . . bunting Young makes it less likely that you score 3 or more runs. I don't agree that it makes it less likely that you score 2 runs. In fact, I'd argue that - with last night's lineup - your best chance of scoring 2 runs in the first inning is to bunt Young. And, simultaneously, you increase the chances of scoring at least one run. Thus, I would certainly understand anyone advocating increasing the chances of scoring one run, putting 2 runs on the board with a single and sacrificing the chances at a 3, 4, or 5 run inning - given that lineup.

How? You've just given up an opportunity to get a hit. Which is more likely, No. 9: getting a hit in 3 opportunities, or getting a hit in only 2 opportunities? The obvious answer is 3 opportunities. So how does bunting increase the likelihood of scoring multiple runs when it lessens the overall likelihood of getting even one hit, especially with players that you described as "uuuugh"?

Quote:
Here's my hypothetical (and before anyone jumps down my throat about run expectancies, I MADE UP THESE NUMBERS):
Runners on first and second, no outs with Young, Jones, LaRoche and Pearce coming - all hitting away:
Chances of scoring a single run: 33%
Chances of scoring two runs: 15%
Chances of scoring more than two runs: 7%

Runners on second and third, one out with Jones, LaRoche and Pearce coming up:
Chances of scoring a single run: 75%
Chances of scoring two runs: 25%
Chances of scoring more than two runs: 2%

If (and I stress IF) those were accurate numbers based upon last night's lineup and based upon the pitcher that was on the mound . . . wouldn't even the statistically minded participants on this Board concede that there are valid and sound arguments for sacrificing Young at that point in the game? If you aren't willing to concede that point, then I challenge you to educate me as to where is the "tipping point?" Ie; at what point is the statistical liklihood of putting up multiple runs so remote that adopting a strategy to maximize scoring one run or two runs make statistical sense to you?

Perhaps in that scenario, it might make sense; it would largely depend on the average number of runs one can expect to score in each scenario. But guess what? Those are not the real numbers. I know you like dealing with hypotheticals, but that's all they are: hypotheticals. We have real concrete numbers to work with, and those numbers say that bunting is not a prudent strategy in the first inning. Stop living in a hypothetical world and come back to reality.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:54 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
I am not arguing bunting with Wilton. :D :D

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4070
Location: Zelienople, PA
You should. His arguement is wholly irrelevant to the points No. 9 made, just by looking at his first chart.

He uses exactly the type of arguement that makes no sense in a player-centric model.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Thanks for that table, Willton. Printed out a copy for myself and a copy for a coworker.

I wonder, though, if there is a way to calculate the thresholds for the batters on deck and in the hole. In other words, if the batter you are asking to bunt sucks, and the next two guys suck, how much do they have to suck to make a bunt worth it?

Also, lost in all of this is that Young absolutely smoked that ball up the middle. If Hampton doesn't glove it and it deflects into CF, no one is bitching that he should have bunted (yeah, yeah, yeah...IF...well if assholes were airplanes this place would be an airport).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
You should. His arguement is wholly irrelevant to the points No. 9 made, just by looking at his first chart.

He uses exactly the type of arguement that makes no sense in a player-centric model.

ZM

A player-centric model would likely not change the conclusion. The only reason that I am not doing a player-centric model is because that is very difficult and time-consuming for me to do, and I should be studying for the NY and NJ bar exams.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: DEJA VU!!! RUSSELL DOES IT AGAIN!!! WOW
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4070
Location: Zelienople, PA
Fair enough, and good luck in the studies.

However, that is really the point in terms of getting in-depth. Not something you or I have the time to do, but which is done by the guys in the little green computer room at Pirate-Central.

They do have the info, and if nothing else, it provides for a number of options to consider when bunting.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dr. Phibes, Google Adsense [Bot], StarlingArcher and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits