FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. This is one of the things Frank Wren accomplished when building the 2010 Braves. David Ross, Brooks Conrad, Omar Infante, and Eric Hinske aren’t sexy names, but they’re great role players who’ve done a fine job supporting some “big logs” like Chipper, Escobar, Glaus, and McLouth, who aren’t/didn’t play up to expectations.

    Comment by Onions — August 4, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

  2. Although I agree with the main point you’re trying to make, I don’t necessarily agree with your examples. Dickey has been worth -0.5 WAR over the last 5 years and has not posted any positive WAR year since 2004. There’s no reason he should have been in the rotation at any point in April. Yeah, he’s been a god-send for the Mets, but that cannot have been predicted. His history is in line with the guys you mention as weak logs (Jacobs, GMJ, etc). If they called him up to replace Perez in April, and he pitched like someone could have reasonably expected (i.e. shitty), he’d be another case of a weak log for your article. By citing him as an example, you’re relying on hindsight being 20/20.

    As for Barajas, I didn’t see very many articles in Spring Training, April or May saying that he should not have been in the line-up.

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 4, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

  3. On Jeff Francoeur – he’s got .1 WAR this season; that’s certainly not helping the Mets, but it’s sort of pointless to release him unless you have a player that you believe is above replacement level to take his place – by the very definition of replacement level, that’s certainly not a given. Also, he’s by no means a useless player – he has a .348 wOBA this year and .347 wOBA for his career against lefties, which with his slightly above average defense makes him a perfectly legitimate platoon player. Is he overpaid and overused? Certainly, but let’s not let those facts obscure what he is.

    You absolutely have a point that the weak logs are hurting the dam, but at the same time it’s also true that some of the stars have been underperforming. Bay is on pace to finish around 2 WAR – that’s an average player. Reyes may have some excuse due to his injury, but a 3 WAR/150 is a good player, not the great one that Reyes has been (from 2006-2008 his WAR each year was between 5.5 and 6). The Mets are 6.5 back in the East and out of the Wild Card race, due to factors including some poor roster decisions and some unfortunate injuries. If thy are to have a shot at contending this year, they need to optimize their roster as Kannengeiser suggests, but they’re also going to need their stars to play like stars from here on out.

    Comment by Preston — August 4, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

  4. I think the point he was trying to make was that the weak logs decide your fate, not the strong ones.

    Comment by descender — August 4, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

  5. K-Rod flat-out great? Really? Check your stats before you write adjectives to describe stats. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=3&season=2010&month=0

    Pagan one of the best players in baseball this season? Whoa…..not so much. Are you referring to the same stats my grandpa does? http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=300&type=3&season=2010&month=0

    Other than those two players descriptions, I think the article is really good. Thank you for the entertaining read.

    Comment by JMeyers — August 4, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

  6. Thanks for the comment. I’m actually referring to advanced stats, so unless your grandfather is a fan of Fangraphs, no. Angel Pagan has the 13th highest WAR in all of baseball for position players. Yes, that qualifies as “one of the best this season.” He’s higher than Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez, David Wright, and Kevin Youkilis.

    K-Rod has a 2.68 FIP, 3.38 xFIP, a 2.35 ERA, and the third best K/BB of this career. That counts as “great” in my book.

    Comment by Pat Andriola — August 4, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

  7. There’s no reason that the “strong logs” should break in the situation of a baseball team. Lots of star players have carried on being star players even without any strong support on the team, both hitters and pitchers. Reyes and Beltran didn’t get injured because the catcher didn’t produce. Jason Bay hasn’t stunk (compared to hopes) because Oliver Perez was really bad. The Mets could have been substantially better either by having star-level performances from guys who ended up injured, or by having a stronger team at every position…but neither happened.

    It’s true that if you are trying to build a great team, you should be able to find both stars and solid regulars, and the Mets are certainly in a position to spend enough to have a great team. They shouldn’t be where they are, which is more of a “if things go well and players don’t get injured, we’ll contend”, than a “if things don’t go well, we might not make it to the playoffs”.

    Comment by aweb — August 4, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

  8. K-Rod 11k’s per 9, a FIP under 3, and 1.3 WAR as a reliever. Thats flat out great.

    Pagan 4.3 WAR. Really no need to explain. Thats better than A-Rod, Albert Pujols and Adrian Gonzalez.

    Comment by Thomas — August 4, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

  9. Pagan is 6th in WAR for position players — it’s fair to say he’s among the best.

    The problem with Francoeur is that his 0 WAR is really useless. He doesn’t provide any flexibility as a backup outfielder or pinch hitter. He’s kinda useless at hitting and fielding. I’d rather a 0 WAR guy who can’t field or run, but is a valuable hitter or a slick fielder who hits so bad he’s 0 WAR. The Mets have some guys hitting in AAA. Why not bring them up and see if they can contribute at some level?

    Comment by MetsFan — August 4, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

  10. The Mets dam collapses at first contact with water, if that’s the metaphor we’re sticking with here.

    Comment by bflaff — August 4, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

  11. Of course, the inverse of this is Amdahl’s law. You can only improve the team so much by improving the guys with limited roles(Alex Cora). Swapping starters is big though. Really, I think this is an instance of poor player evaluation rather than not understanding marginal utility. Also, replacements have to be available. Your stuck with .1 war if your next best guy is -.1 WAR unfortunately. The Red Sox played Kevin Cash with something like their top 4 organizational catchers on the DL. Cash is historically awful, but he was available because of it. I don’t think it really applies to the mets, but scarcity seems to be misunderstood in baseball. Sometimes, teams don’t make a move because none is available.

    Comment by James — August 4, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  12. I like this article a LOT. The Mets had so many weak logs, in the rotation and everyday starters, that it was expecting a lot of them to stay in contention all year. The question is how their payroll got so bloated, with so little professional-grade talent to show for it. And speaking of professional…

    “Jeff Francoeur honestly doesn’t deserve to play baseball at any level professionally.”

    I know he makes for our SABR-poster-child-whipping-boy, but Frenchie is a perfectly acceptable AAA player (his 3-game sulkfest in AAA last year notwithstanding). That is professional baseball, strictly speaking.

    Comment by Jason B — August 4, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

  13. Thanks for the comment, James. And I was just using hyperbole for Francoeur. He’d be a fine outfielder for the St. Paul Saints :)

    Comment by Pat Andriola — August 4, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  14. But there were *plenty* of guys in starting/featured roles that were either unexceptional logs (Barajas, Castillo) or worse (Jacobs, Matthews, Francoeur, 3/5 of the rotation) coming into the season.

    Comment by Jason B — August 4, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

  15. WPA? Why are you using that to define good and bad?

    Comment by marcello — August 4, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  16. YOU DISRESPECT THE LEGEND. YOU SPELL THE LEGEND’S NAME WRONG? WHY?

    Comment by Sam — August 4, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

  17. Doesn’t that imply that maybe, just maybe, there is something slightly wrong with WAR?

    Comment by JK — August 4, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

  18. There may possibly be, but that doesn’t imply it. Angel Pagan has a .376 wOBA, is great on the basepaths, is fantastic defensively, and plays a premium position, along with being healthy for the entire year. That’s a great player.

    Comment by Pat Andriola — August 4, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

  19. I’m not sure if he was saying Pagan’s 4.3 WAR implies there is something wrong with the metric, or K-Rod’s 1.3.

    To which I would reply – no, K-Rod can be great and still have a “low” WAR figure (lower than a lot of pedestrian everyday players) just because his usage has been limited to save situations (the occasional 20-inning marathon notwithstanding), whereas everyday players have a chance to “accumulate” WAR and fractions thereof…every day.

    Comment by Jason B — August 4, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

  20. “Pagan 4.3 WAR. Really no need to explain. Thats better than A-Rod, Albert Pujols and Adrian Gonzalez.”

    Only on Fangraphs. Thanks for the laugh.

    Comment by Angel Pagan's agent — August 4, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

  21. If those players were having good seasons that weren’t shown in the WAR number, then yes it would.

    … but they are not.

    Comment by descender — August 4, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

  22. I like the article. The only thing I’m not sure of is whether the Mets FO purposely tries to get by with some great players surrounded by shit and thinking it’s enough. Or if they really have a problem identifying the difference between replacement level scrubs and average ball players.

    I’m more inclined to think the latter when you look at the contracts that Omar hands out. It’s a big market team so you expect some overpay for star players. But when you look at Oliver Perez, Castillo, Francoer and even Cora, they are all getting paid as average ball players. I mean… they paid Gary Matthews 2M to start/platoon in CF when they had a good internal option.

    Comment by Franco — August 4, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

  23. It doesn’t say that he’s a better player than them. he is having a better season. Is that hard to understand?

    Jose Bautista leads the league in home-runs, but he is not the best power hitter in the league by a long shot.

    See the difference?

    Comment by descender — August 4, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

  24. I equate what the Mets have done for the last 4 years to throwing bricks in a pile and waiting for the house to build itself.

    Comment by descender — August 4, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

  25. Pujols is having a bad season? No kidding, since when is a wOBA at ~.400 a bad season? I get that first base is not as important defensive position as whatever other position Pagan plays most of the time but if WAR tells me that Pagan is more valuable than Pujols it seems subjectively hard to swallow.

    Comment by Knoles — August 4, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

  26. “if WAR tells me that Pagan is more valuable than Pujols it seems subjectively hard to swallow.”

    I don’t find it hard to swallow at all. The simple solution is this:
    1. What would the dropoff be if you traded Pujols for any one of the next 10 best first basemen? (over this season)
    2. What would the dropoff be if you traded Pagan for one of the next 10 best CF?

    At the 10th best 1B, you’ll be hitting Butler and Texeira. By the time you get to 10th best CF, you’re going to be scraping some guys who are a much bigger step down. Austin Jackson, Rasmus, and Span are all around there. These are all good players, but I can entirely believe that Pagan and Pujols have had similar values this season.

    Which is not to say Pagan is better than Pujols. Pujols has been doing this for a LOT longer. Pagan is probably not going to be as good next year, while Pujols could end up being better (this has been a so-so season by his ridiculously great standards). Additionally, one could state that the offensive dominance of Pujols benefits you extra in the postseason or against tough pitchers- helping you win more games against tougher opponents. But with that said, a well-hitting, good def CF is worth an awful lot. It’s a scarce commodity.

    Comment by B N — August 4, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

  27. I don’t get it. Are you saying the strong logs are to blame or the weak logs?

    I can read it both ways. The strong logs aren’t strong enough to pull along all that crap they put on the field but you’re talking about marginal utility so it seems like upgrading one of those weak logs is only marginally useful and wouldn’t really make the dam nice and strong? Hopefully I’m misinterpreting

    Comment by Jim Lahey — August 4, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

  28. At which point, they attempt to plug it by funneling lots of greenbacks into the Bay.

    Comment by B N — August 4, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

  29. Yes, you are misinterpreting. :) But don’t go circular on us.

    Comment by B N — August 4, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

  30. I don’t disagree at all with the gist of your point here, but I believe it’s a bit misleading. No one would argue that early Mets lineup was awful, but Ike Davis came up within the first 2 weeks of the season, Pagan took over in Center for MAtthews early on, and It only took “month” (singular) to replace Ollie and Maine in the rotation. The Mets better understanding the concept of *sunk cost* would certainly behoove them.

    And K-Rod flat-out great? You can throw numbers out and point out Manuel’s ridiculous usage patterns (I shall never use you in a non-save situation!….unless you need work in a blowout) and point out the flawed stat. BUT…bottom line is if his sole (under-utilized) purpose is to preserve 1-3 run leads for 1 inning and he has failed on 5 of 28 chances, he’s just not “flat out great”.

    Comment by Adam — August 4, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

  31. The sad thing about the Mets is that they’ve managed to suck while underpaying their star players and running that kind of payroll. It’s kind of impressive, actually.

    Comment by Kevin S. — August 4, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

  32. … and what closers have better than “5 of 28″ (i’m not even checking that stat but you can have it, k-rod has 1 “blown save”)?

    Comment by descender — August 4, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

  33. @B N — Would you trade Pagan straight up for Pujols? If you believe these WAR values are the true talent level then they imply that the team getting Pagan is getting the better deal. Esp given age, contract, etc.

    You also are implying that the scarcity of CFs that can hit makes Pagan more valuable than Pujols, but then still say that Pujols is a better player, which i infer to mean that you don’t really believe the positional adjustments are correct. So bascially, you disagree with me, but then you go on to state the Pujols is better…which again is whay it is hard for me to think that Pagan is better then Pujols…

    Comment by Knoles — August 4, 2010 @ 5:34 pm

  34. Yes it is hard to understand how someone like Pagan can be compared in favorable light to a guy like the great Pujols.

    Comment by Tony L — August 4, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

  35. WAR is not a measure of true talent, but a measure of performance up to date. The meaning of Pagan having a higher WAR is that he has performed better up to date. This does not imply that he will perform better in the future.

    Comment by BC — August 4, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

  36. Tony L – it’s not that outlandish. It merely states that Pagan’s production has been more useful to his team than Pujols’ production.

    Saying one is better or as good as the other doesn’t come into the conversation.

    Comment by Tom B — August 4, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

  37. WAR != true talent level, and I don’t think BN ever implied that.

    Comment by Kevin S. — August 4, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

  38. @Knoles

    I think you are putting words into his mouth. If Pagan continues to outproduce Pujols in WAR all following seasons I would think it’s clear on whom is the better choice. Pujols is a more probable choice to repeat his performance based on earlier performance but so far Pagan have had better result this season then Pujols, if he can continue this remain to be seen.

    I think you should learn the difference between “One could state” and “Go on to state” they are not the same.

    Comment by Fullgatsu — August 4, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

  39. I watch the Saints from time to time. Francoeur wouldn’t cut it there, either. :)

    Comment by Erik — August 4, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

  40. I think the comments in this thread further illustrate the lack of understanding what WAR really is…and means.

    Comment by Erik — August 4, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

  41. “General Managers consistently refuse to ignore minor holes on their roster, and this comes from a lack of understanding the true value of stats like Wins Above Replacement (WAR).”

    I agree with the points you’re making, but wouldn’t you want to say that too many GMs *do* ignore the holes on their roster, thus playing Cora, Francoeur, etc… refusing to ignore the weak logs, or paying close attention to them, would be a good thing; ignoring them would be the bad, correct?

    You’re right, Erik, apparently WAR isn’t that easy to understand???

    Comment by STEALTH — August 4, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

  42. Great analogy. Very well said.

    Comment by Ogre39666 — August 4, 2010 @ 9:00 pm

  43. 2009 was an injury-plagued season that no team, even the Yankees, could have survived. In the other 4 seasons from 2006-2010, don’t the Mets have the most wins in the National League? They’ve only made the playoffs once, but they haven’t exactly sucked.

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 4, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

  44. I agree and I think it could have been worded a little differently, but I also think the idea is that having a few really awesome players and bunch of below average players is a very risky position to be in. Should just one or two of those player go down, you just don’t have any room to make up for it.

    To get a little picture of my point: Say you have 14 guys that produce 3 WAR each, and could replace them with a 1 WAR player if lost. Your team then has a max potential of 42 WAR, and if one player is hurt you drop to 40, two 38 and so on. If you have 5 guys that produce 5.5 WAR and 9 guys that produce 1.5 WAR, you have basically the same team if no injuries, with a max of 41 WAR. However if you have one of the wrong players go down to injury, you’ve basically just lost 4.5 WAR from your team and you should expect this to happen on ~1/3 of your injuries. Two of those players get hurt, and you’re down to 32 WAR and went from being a contender to fighting for a .500 record.

    So you need to try and get as good of players as you can, and there is nothing wrong with targeting the Beltrans or Reyes, but you need to construct a balanced roster should one or two of those guys not perform as you expect. Which is an eventual certainty.

    Comment by Wally — August 5, 2010 @ 1:21 am

  45. Sometimes, a player just has a fluky season. That doesn’t mean the statistic is wrong. It just means that one guy was really good for one year.

    Comment by Wally — August 5, 2010 @ 1:23 am

  46. Don’t worry Tony, I’m sure Pujols will have the better WAR by season’s end.

    Pujols’ fielding has been rated as roughly average, and second worst of his career. That will probably go up. Similarly a .400ish wOBA is just not Pujolsian. He’ll improve that most likely as well. Pagan however, is not likely to be a true talent .375 wOBA hitter, nor a +10 CFer. Maybe close to that, but not all the way. So he’s likely to regress a little as well. Then we’re only talking about a .2 WAR difference between the two. That’s well within the margin of error for fielding alone. So it all work out. You just gotta wait for N to get a little bigger.

    Comment by Wally — August 5, 2010 @ 1:37 am

  47. Yes its impressive and sad at the same time.

    Its too bad we don’t have a large minor league system of GMs or even owners with replacement level and that. Cuz I’m sure the mets would be way below replacement. I just see no reason why the average fangraphs reader couldn’t have walked into say, the Mets of 2007, and built a power house.

    I’d guess maybe baseball’s next big hurdle is not to evanuate talent on the field, but off it.

    Comment by Wally — August 5, 2010 @ 1:42 am

  48. @viviapiazza — Look at this years Red Sox and Phils — both have had injuries on par with Mets, yet they aren’t 20 games under .500. Relying on the crutch of injuries is a weak argument, that team was poorly constructed from the start with no depth on the bench or in the high minors.

    Comment by Tony L — August 5, 2010 @ 9:13 am

  49. The articles are written by the same people who blame the big logs. The contributors and readers over at Amazin Avenue all agreed that Henry Blanco was better than Barajas.

    Comment by Joamiq — August 5, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

  50. If the Phils lost Rollins, Werth and Howard for almost the entire season, Halladay for the end of the season and Utley was out with a concussion for several weeks, then that would be in line with the Mets’ 2009 situation. They haven’t had close to that sort of injury-plagued season. Last year, the Mets lost Beltran, Reyes and Delgado for almost the entire season….no team could survive that!

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 5, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

  51. This piece by Pat Andriola states the obvious, and could have been expressed in one paragraph. Fangraphs is valuable website, butt it consistently over intellectualizes. Dress up a pig and it’s still a pig. Do I need WAR’s and wOBA’s to assess player value in lieu of my own observation? No. Is a headline such as “Why Not Understanding Marginal Utitility Is Circular Problem,” necessary for something so obvious and simple in observation such as the relative strengths and weaknesses of iMets players and how it impacts the whole ? No, I don’t think so. The people who visit this website are already smart. Overkill is unnecessary to prove that you are.

    Comment by LongTimeFan — August 5, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

  52. vivalapiazza – the yankees won 89 games in 2009 dealing with a very similar load of injuries. 4/5 starters and matsui at the least, and i’m sure there are other position guys that i am forgetting.

    doing what the mets did in 2009 is a result of one thing, no heart.

    oh, and jerry manuel is the worst manager in the history of baseball.

    Comment by oh dear — August 5, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

  53. oh dear, 4 of the 5 best players on the Mets (Reyes, Beltran, Delgado, Santana) all missed a significant portion of the season last year, and their best player (Wright) missed a few weeks due to a concussion and wasn’t the same upon returning.

    I’m assuming you’re speaking of the 2008 Yankees and not the 2009 Yankees. They lost Matsui and Posada for a good chunk of the season. What were they, their #7 and #8 hitters? The rest of their lineup was fine. As for their pitchers, Wang missed a good amount of the season. I don’t see any other significant injuries, unless that’s the year Hughes got hurt?

    It’s one thing to have some starters miss a lot of the season. It’s another thing to have your 5 best players all miss time.

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 5, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

  54. On the flip side, if a team has 5 studs and 9 below average players, it’s MUCH easier to improve that team. If a team is filled with 3 WAR players, it’s much harder to improve because you’d need to find players worth more than 3 WAR. Finding someone that can outproduce 1.5 WAR, however, is palatable for a decent GM.

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 5, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

  55. This is a truly weak piece by someone who quite obviously does not follow the Mets closely.

    “Angel Pagan has been one of the best players in baseball this season.” No he hasn’t; not even close. He has been very good though.

    “Ike Davis is having a nice rookie year at first base.” Nice at VERY best. Lots of Ks, weak BA and OBP, slow, and decent fielder.

    “Mike Pelfrey has a better ERA/FIP/xFIP/tERA than last year.” Pelf has been abominable for a month or more.

    “K-Rod has been flat-out great.” No, he most certainly hasn’t. Among the league leaders in blown saves, he has been very good, but not remotely close to “flat out great.”

    “Jose Reyes has been incredible.” A laugher; absolute nonsense and ridiculous. Has been mediocre at the plate, in the field recently, and on the basepaths. By any standard, especially Jose’s past.

    A very silly and nonsensical article that vividly proves the occasional accuracy of the very negative things people say about “statheads.”

    Comment by Kingman 26 — August 6, 2010 @ 8:59 am

  56. Here, let me google that for you: http://hosted.stats.com/mlb/getleaders.asp?rank=303. K-Rod’s save percentage ranks 11th in the NL. Sure, small sample size, but we’re also using small sample size when discussing Pagan’s season. Also, K-Rod clearly has 5 blown saves on the year – I’m guessing you confused “Balks” with “Blown Saves.”

    I guess I’m also a little flummoxed about the adjectives for the Mets players, since Reyes is having a down year by his standards (he’s posted seasons of 5.7; 5.5; and 6.0 WAR), and it would have been hard for Pelfrey not to improve on his 2009 numbers (although he has been dreadful from July).

    Comment by Sean — August 6, 2010 @ 11:59 am

  57. @vivalapiazza — Wasn;t Pagan on the Mets last year? I thought he was their best player? (or at least one of the best players this year).

    Mets fans use this crutch of injuries a bit much. If you count on a 37 year old 1b as one of your 4-5 best players then be prepared to deal with an injury. If you count on a CF with no cartlidge in his knees then prepare for him to mis 80 games a year. Do you see this logic here? There was no preperation for any injuries there was no back up plan except a no hit 1b, Sheffield in LF, Church for Francouer in RF…There was no reaction to the team falling apart. And this year, with these guys healthy, except the CF with no cartlidge, they are at best a .500 team but will probably finish 10 or so under. The Red Sox have a ton of injuries this year, go look them up, and they are still 10+ games over .500, lets see how they finish. I hate agreeinng with ‘oh dear’ beceuse he/she is probably a Yankee fan, but 2009 (and 07 and 08) had no heart and where chokers.

    Comment by Max — August 6, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

  58. Max, Beltran & Delgado averaged 160 games in 2008. It’s easy to dismiss that with “oh, he’s 37 years old!” and “he has no cartilage!”, but what could they have reasonably done? Beltran was the best CF in baseball coming off of a season where he played 161 games. Delgado played 159 games in 2008 and hit the cover off of the ball in the 2nd half of the year. You really expect a team to spend cash on legit back-ups at those positions?

    The biggest hit may have been Reyes (and they were actually in first place when he got hurt last year). When you have an elite SS in his mid-20′s, you don’t spend millions on a fallback option.

    If they lost 1 or 2 of their stars or they lost some role players then that’d be different. But to lose that many stars, 3 of which got injured early in the season….that’s tough to deal with.

    Comment by vivalapiazza — August 6, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

  59. What is the additional Marginal Utility added from beating up your father in law? K-rod was lights out last night! (Alegedly)

    Comment by LetsGoMutz — August 12, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Current ye@r *

Close this window.

0.323 Powered by WordPress