Are Chapman and Kimbrel Cy Young Contenders?

Last night, on the Sunday Night Baseball telecast of the Atlanta Braves and New York Mets, announcer Dan Shulman facilitated a discussion surrounding relievers and the Cy Young Award.

Quite simply, should Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel be considered legitimate candidates for the NL Cy Young Award this season?

Relievers possess a difficult time making noise in the Cy Young Award voting because they do not throw nearly as many innings as starting pitchers. Fewer innings equal fewer opportunities to make an impact and provide value to one’s baseball team. This sentiment was largely echoed by Orel Hershiser and Buster Olney on the Sunday Night Baseball broadcast.

The topic of relievers and the Cy Young Award seems to surface annually. This season, however, the conversation has become more earnest because Chapman and Kimbrel are compiling video game numbers on the mound. Just look at how dominant both have been for their respective teams, prior to Sunday’s games:


Pitcher IP ERA FIP FIP- K/9 BB/9
Aroldis Chapman 56.0 1.29 1.00 26 16.88 2.25
Craig Kimbrel 43.0 1.26 0.97 26 15.70 2.30

Chapman is currently on pace to set a single-season record for most strikeouts per nine innings (min. 50 IP), while Kimbrel owns a FIP under 1.00. To put that in perspective, the lowest FIP last season (again, min. 50 IP) was 1.52 — which also belonged to Kimbrel.

The two relievers are enjoying extraordinary seasons on the mound. However, the issue that relievers pitch too few innings to warrant being the most valuable player throughout an entire season does not suddenly become moot due to the fact that Chapman and Kimbrel are redefining the term “dominance” for a relief pitcher.

If we look at WPA, though, the notion that relievers do not pitch enough innings to have a greater overall impact than starting pitchers becomes more muddled. Prior to Sunday’s games, four of the top five WPAs amongst pitchers are relievers — two of which are Chapman and Kimbrel.

Pitcher WPA
Kyle Lohse 2.99
Huston Street 2.61
Craig Kimbrel 2.56
Joel Hanrahan 2.39
Aroldis Chapman 2.36
Johnny Cueto 2.25
Steve Cishek 2.17
Ryan Vogelsong 2.01
Jordan Zimmermann 1.89
Mike Fiers 1.82

As Tangotiger mentions four years ago, WPA captures “the quantification of your feelings as the game unfolds, assigned to the players involved.” Thus, it feels as if Chapman and Kimbrel have contributed more toward their respective team’s wins than Johnny Cueto, R.A. Dickey, Gio Gonzalez, and various other starting pitchers who are currently thought to lead the National League Cy Young Award race.

WPA can be misleading, though. Since Chapman and Kimbrel (along with the other relievers listed above) largely pitch the final inning, their performances are naturally going to impact win expectancy more heavily than starting pitchers, who work in earlier innings, when individual outs do not carry as much weight.

Perhaps we should then look at something more accurately connected with talent evaluation. How do Chapman and Kimbrel rank in comparison to starting pitchers in terms of wins above replacement?

Pitcher WAR
R.A. Dickey 4.1
Gio Gonzalez 4.1
Clayton Kershaw 3.9
Johnny Cueto 3.9
Stephen Strasburg 3.8
Zack Greinke 3.8
Josh Johnson 3.5
Adam Wainwright 3.4
Wade Miley 3.3
Aroldis Chapman 3.1

Chapman sneaks in the Top 10, while Kimbrel checks in at #23 with +2.3 WAR through his 43.0 innings of work.

This WAR list more accurately reflects what has been said for years. Starters are simply more valuable than relievers due to the fact that they see more innings, face more batters, and need to have a more diverse skill set to remain effective for multiple innings.

Still, the fact that Aroldis Chapman even appears in the Top 10 WAR list is noteworthy. Last season, Kimbrel posted the highest WAR amongst relievers. He was worth +3.2 wins in 2011. Aroldis Chapman has already compiled +3.1 WAR with a month and a half remaining in the season. Only nine starters in the National League have been more valuable than Chapman, and the left-hander has only thrown 56.0 innings this season. That’s ridiculous.

Legitimate arguments can be made for Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel to be legitimately included in the NL Cy Young Award race this season. They have contributed more toward their respective team’s win expectancy than every single starter not named Kyle Lohse, and Chapman’s name sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the pitching WAR leaders in the National League.

The question then becomes what one believes the Cy Young Award to truly represent. Does it represent the pitcher with the best statistics, or does it represent the most talented pitcher in terms of physical tools and dominance on the mound?

If it’s the former, Chapman and Kimbrel should absolutely be included in the Cy Young discussion. Their numbers are simply extraordinary, and few arguments can be made against that assertion.

If it’s the latter, however, the question becomes much more subjective. ESPN’s Orel Hershiser opined on Sunday evening that two or three starting pitchers on every starting staff could be closers. Would the numbers Chapman and Kimbrel are posting this season appear so utterly dominant and awe-inspiring if Clayton Kershaw transitioned to the closer’s role? How about Stephen Strasburg? How about someone more under-the-radar, such as James McDonald?

The season John Smoltz put together in 2003 is a solid example of what a top-of-the-rotation starter can do in the bullpen as a closer. He compiled a 1.12 ERA and 1.54 FIP in 64.1 innings. In the three years he served solely as the Braves’ closer, he never posted a FIP above 2.72, and his 10.21 K/9 strikeout rate in 2003 was far above his 7.99 K/9 career average. As one would imagine, during a single inning late in the game, his stuff played up in the bullpen.

Comparing starters to relievers on a one-to-one basis in a single season and simply asking which is more talented as a pitcher is difficult because the roles are vastly different. Starters cannot give max effort every single inning. They also pay more attention to pitch sequencing and how to set up hitters for later at-bats in the same game. Relievers, on the other hand, max out their stuff in one inning. They do not need three pitches. Their approach on the mound is not as nuanced in terms of sequencing and setting up opposing batters for later at-bats.

Once again, if the Cy Young Award will simply be based upon the statistics compiled throughout the season, Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel should be in the discussion. Statistics may not make up every piece of the Cy Young puzzle, though, and if that’s the case, Chapman and Kimbrel will have much more ground to make up on the starting pitchers in the National League.




Print This Post



J.P. Breen is a graduate student at the University of Chicago. For analysis on the Brewers and fantasy baseball, you can follow him on Twitter (@JP_Breen).


58 Responses to “Are Chapman and Kimbrel Cy Young Contenders?”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. drewcorb says:

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say “the pitcher with the best statistics”. You seem to mean the pitcher with the best “rate statistics”. I would consider IP to be a statistic, but it’s definitely not one that supports the case for closers being considered for the Cy Young award.

    I disagree with saying dominance and physical tools support the case for only starters winning the Cy Young. I think if you look at physical tools, Chapman would be among the most gifted along with maybe Strasburg and Kershaw for example. But Kershaw and Strasburg need to harness more than just physical tools, but also sequencing and learning more pitches.

    +8 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MikeS says:

      I agree. It’s hard to argue that anybody that gets 200 outs a year and doesn’t face most hitters more than 3 or 4 times a year is “better” than everybody who gets 600 outs a year and has to face each hitter 3 or 4 times a game.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • DJG says:

      I agree, author’s distinct between “stats” and “talent” is confusing. His distinct between between value and dominance is the better one. That’s the real question for Cy Young voters (or at least it should be) in deciding whether or not a reliever is worthy.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. RMD says:

    Speaking as a Braves fan, I hope they split the vote and allow a starter to win the Cy Young.

    ’03 Cy Young winner Gange had an ERA- of 30. Chapman and Kimbrel currently are sitting at 31 and 32. They’re essentially dominating at the same level as the previous reliever Cy Young winner. Hopefully the voters have grown more competent in the last decade.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Don Draper says:

      What does the 2003 cy young winner have to do with anything?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivalajeter says:

        That was the last time a reliever won the award, so it’s not completely irrelevant.

        I didn’t mind Gagne winning that year, but I think this year is different. For one thing, Gagne had a different aura than Chapman/Kimbrel. Not only did he have the absurd era and K numbers, but he didn’t blow a save all year (except for the all-star game). When he came into the game, you knew the game was over. As great as Chapman/Kimbrel are, I don’t think they have the “$hit, it’s over!” feel like Gagne did. That’s a major reason why he won – not necessarily just because of the stats, but also the intangible aspect.

        Also, the fact that two relievers are doing it this year, that really takes away from it. When Gagne did it, he was on another level than the rest of the relievers. This year, you can make a case for either Chapman or Kimbrel – which means neither one has any legit shot.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • bstar says:

        Sounds like you need to watch some more Reds and Braves games really badly, Viva.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Frank Robinson's white grandson says:

        @vivalajeter,
        http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_06_19_atlmlb_nyamlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=nyy

        You may not have had that “feeling”, but “$hit, it was over”.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivalajeter says:

        bstar and frank, they might be on par with Gagne ’03, but I still don’t think they have that factor. I put them more in the Billy Wagner camp where you knew your team had very little chance of winning, but you were just hoping for him to make one bad pitch. Whereas with Gagne, you knew the game was over – he wasn’t going to make a mistake.

        It’s obviously a matter of opinion with an intangible like that, but part of the Cy Young award is based on the narrative – and they’re not in the same league as Gagne ’03 when it comes to that. There was a ton of hype around Gagne back then. With these two guys, I just don’t see it. Maybe the media will catch on in September, but this is one of the few articles I’ve seen about them this year.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason says:

        CHapman has given up exactly 1 earned run to a national league team this year. Strikes out 2 an inning. He comes in it IS over. Kimbrel, the same.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivalajeter says:

        Interleague games don’t count?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • bstar says:

        Viva, there was a ton of hype around Gagne in ’03 because no reliever had ever been that dominant, from an unhittable aspect. But just because the hype is less in no way makes Gagne ’03 better than Kimbrel or Chapman this year. Especially Kimbrel:

        E Gagne ’03 .133/.199/.176/.374 OPS+ 4
        Kimbrel ’12 .121/.181/.168/.349 OPS+ -2

        All of these numbers would be MLB records for Kimbrel if he gets to 50 IP, by the way.

        E Gagne ’03 K%-44.8/XBH%-2.6
        Kimbrel ’12 K%-48.1/XBH%-1.9

        And yet somehow Kimbrel doesn’t possess that “Sh!t, it’s over” attribute this year?? My biggest worry when Kimbrel comes into a game is whether he’ll throw two balls to any batter or whether he gives up one single (which is a bad outing for him).

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. gobears says:

    (Somewhat) easy solution: make another award for relievers. How do you limit it to relievers? Not sure- cap IP at 80 or 100?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Brian says:

    If you’re anti-reliever winning it, just stick to the value / innings pitched argument. Orel did nothing but fuel the debate further last night by going with the “starters are always better than relievers” argument.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MikeS says:

      It’s not such a horrible argument. It’s changing recently with some guys drafted to be relievers from the start, but almost all relievers on MLB rosters are failed starters.

      It may be more appropriate to talk about a different skill set – 1 or 2 very good pitches without a third pitch, ability to bounce back quickly and pitch for short stints several days in a row – but still most of those guys moved to the ‘pen because they couldn’t develop a third pitch or be effective over 100 pitches. Those are negative reasons, not positive ones.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Jason says:

    Do they belong in the conversation? Absolutely. Should they win? I wouldn’t give it to Chapman or Kimbrel over Cueto if it ended today, but a lot could happen in the next month and a half.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jason says:

      And for the record I give it to Cueto over Gonzalez and Dickey for having equal 4.1 WAR and for pitching in a division with 4 out of the top 5 home run hitting teams in the NL, in a tiny ballpark, and still having comparable numbers to the other two guys.

      +8 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • MauerPower says:

        I know this is FanGraphs but according to BR WAR Cueto is easily the best NL pitcher with 5.3 WAR. Hopefully he gets the Cy, assuming he keeps it up anyway.

        +11 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Doug says:

        MauerPower has a huge point that I feel is often overlooked, just because we’re on fangraphs doesn’t mean we need to only look at fangraphs’s version of WAR. That kinda ignores a lot of the principles of balanced analysis. I’d also like to say that I have an issue with evaluating pitchers solely on fwar, since some pitchers seem to systematically outperform their fip every year. fip may be a better indicator for era going forward for every pitcher, but it doesn’t mean that some pitchers don’t possess certain skills that allow them to systematically outperfom their fip. I’d offer up Tom Glavine and Matt Cain as two possible examples for this.

        +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • DJG says:

      To MauerPower’s and Doug’s point, I like BR WAR better to evaluate a pitcher’s year, in general (granting that FG WAR is probably a better indicator of next year’s performance), because it tells us how good a pitcher actually was at preventing runs over that time.

      The analogy is of a QB who has an amazing year partly because his receivers made a large percentage of great catches and his opponents dropped a lot of INTs. It might not be sustainable, but it happened.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. Matt says:

    I am not saying this to detract from Chapman and Kimbrel, both of whom are deserving of all the love they are being shown. But why is nobody giving any attention to Huston Street’s utterly dominant season? 36 IP, 11 hits, 8 walks, 45 Ks, 0 HRs allowed. I mean, a 0.528 WHIP is kind of ridiculous, no?

    Sure, Street has pitched fewer innings and is not at all in any way up for Cy Young consideration. But I am baffled by the complete lack of attention Street’s terrific season has garnered.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • M says:

      I see your point, but I raise you the major’s best fastball and the major’s best breaking ball.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • rogue_actuary says:

      Street was injured early in the year and is, again, injured.

      I had targeted him before this year as a guy going from Coors to Petco who has always put up good peripheral numbers.

      That being said, I don’t think I would characterize his 0% HR/FB and his .151 BABIP as particularly sustainable.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Hurtlockertwo says:

    Verlander threw 251 innings last year, about 17% of his team’s total, and was dominant. These guys might throw 60-70 innings, or less than a third of a great starter. I can’t see how they can contribute more in terms of “most valuable pitcher” (Cy Young) than a starter.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • rogue_actuary says:

      I think the question isn’t whether or not they should win the Cy Young award, but rather that these two guys are doing something special, and that they should probably be included in the discussion.

      Verlander wouldn’t enter in to their (Chapman’s and Kimbrel’s) CY Young equation if he threw 500 innings of no-hit baseball, as he plays for an AL team.

      I often reference the 2003 NL Cy Young situation when discussing the SP vs. RP Cy Young debate. Mark Prior wasn’t some soft-tosser who benefited from a lot of lucky bounces. If he would have been allowed to only pitch one or two innings at a time, he would likely have been as effective as Gagne. Even if he wouldn’t have been as good as Gagne in the role as closer, he would have likely been very good. And we can be confident that Gagne would not have been as effective as Prior over the course of a starter’s workload. Prior did put up 7.6 fWAR in 2003. If Gagne had shown even a glimmer of ability to perform at Prior’s level, … well, … he would have been a starter.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Josh says:

    If Chapman keeps up this pace and finishes in the top 10 in pitcher WAR in the NL, I’d give him a 3rd place vote just as an acknowledgment of his ridiculous season. However, the extreme difference in IP is too much for me to ever think a reliever should win the Cy Young award. Great over 200 IP is better than amazing over less than half that.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. AlexL925 says:

    About 2 months back, weren’t a lot of these same ESPN analysts up in arms at the idea of Stephen Strasburg winning the award with only 160 IP? And now they’re willing to advocate for someone with fewer than 100? The madness never ends…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Different discussion, I think. I think it’s reasonable to knock a starter for not going many innings because he’s asked to take the ball every fifth day. Come operation shutdown, Strasburg will no longer be doing that. Relievers are there to pitch when they’re called on, and Kimbrel and Chapman have done that.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. jim says:

    relievers shouldn’t win an award named after a man who threw over 7000 innings

    +14 Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Calvin says:

    There should just be a separate award for relievers. Or not, since donkeys with slightly better save numbers would win the award over much better pitchers having much better seasons with such regularity that we’d all start clamoring for the award to just go away.

    Idea 2: There should be a separate award for relievers that’s only voted on by people who don’t think any of W-L record, RBIs, and Saves are good measures of individual performance.

    +7 Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Jeff Mathis does steroids says:

    No, I don’t think that they should be considered. They’re going to throw innings totals that will be roughly equal to 10 starts by a good starting pitcher. 10 starts in which they never have to go through a 2nd or 3rd trip through the order. That just wouldn’t be fair to the starting pitchers in the NL if they got serious consideration.

    Maybe if another Mike Marshall ever entrered the league. But that likely won’t happen.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. chuckb says:

    I think you did a great job of handling this subject. Personally, I don’t think they belong anywhere near the top for all the reasons mentioned re: starters vs. relievers but you dealt with this controversial subject in a very fair, impartial, and objective manner.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Toasty says:

    I suppose it goes without saying that Fernando Rodney will be getting some AL Cy Young votes, provided he doesn’t implode. I was surprised to see that he’s only been worth 1.6 fWAR, about half that of Chapman. But there’s going to be voters drooling over that sub-1 ERA.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. BJ says:

    If relieving is so darn easy I wonder why teams struggle so much to find good closers. There should be anywhere between 60-100 pitchers (using Hershiser’s logic) sitting in rotations today that could close (not including those that are closers or are already in bullpens and who could close). I’m not buying that for a second. I also happen to believe that if you asked Rivera or Hoffman how accurate Orel’s prediction is that they would have a very different take.

    It’s funny because we have relatively little data on how easy it is to transition from the rotation to the bullpen. For every Smoltz success story we have numerous examples of abject failure. I also find it funny that people don’t go around saying that starting is easy when there are plenty of relievers who have transitioned from the bullpen into starters with success.

    At the end of the day both starting AND closing are incredibly difficult. They both require different skill-sets/mind-sets. Sure, there are a few who could do both well. I think that’s the minority though – not the majority as Orel would have you believe.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • EDogg1438 says:

      It’s not just Smoltz. Both Gagne and Rivera were failed starters. Chapman was mediocre last year as a minor league starter. These guys are unhittable as closers but replacement level as starters. Goose Gossage was much worse as a starter than as a closer. I’m sure if those relievers are being honest they’d tell you it’s much easier than starting.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • skip says:

        If you look into it, you’ll find that Chapman was by far the Reds most dominant starter in spring training this year. The only reason he is in the bullpen at all this year is because of the injuries to closer Ryan Madsen and Set-up man Nick Massett. Myself and many other Reds fans will be utterly shocked if he isn’t in the rotation next year. Will he be dominant as a starter? Nobody knows for sure, but I think its ABSURD!!!! to say Chapman and Kimbrel would be replacement level as starters.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason B says:

        Wow – bold type and four exclamation points? He really means it this time, guys…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Calvin says:

        Kimbrel has 0 pro starts at any level. And if anybody along the way thought he had the potential to put up his WAR in the rotation (he’d be the 32nd MVPitcher since the start of 2011), that experiment would have happened long ago. I’m not saying he’d be replacement-level bad as a starter, but it seems hugely unlikely that he could be as valuable there as he is in the pen.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. vivaelpujols says:

    The reason that the WPA and WAR lists are different is that WPA is baselined to average while WAR is baselined to replacement level. WPA assumes that a pitchers innings would otherwise be taken by an average pitcher while WAR assumes those innings would be taken by a replacement level pitcher – thus this overrates pitchers who do not have a lot of innings (a guy with a WPA of .1 in 1 start is assumed to be more valuable than a guy with a WPA of -.2 in 30 starts, even though the second pitcher is way more valuable). In order to make this lists comparable, you should add in 2 points of WPA per 180 innings.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. tom s. says:

    i think the answer to this question, and the reason why i never find this debat that interesting, is fairly obvious. if chapman and kimbrel were made into starters – and certainly the reds have toyed with the concept of having chapman start – their rate stats (K, BB, FIP) would decline. we expect that all the time from members of the bullpen who move into the rotation, just as we expect starters K, BB, and FIP rates to improve when they go into the bullpen.

    johnny cueto would probably be a dynamite reliever. he would probably strike out a lot more guys every inning if he were a starter. the same with gio gonzalez; while i’d rather have gio gonzalez the starter on my team, if i could only have gio gonzalez the reliever on my team, i’d be pretty pleased (leaving money aside).

    many relievers are relievers because they can’t handle the workload of being a starter. even if some relievers could handle it, it’s virtually certain that their rate stats would decline. so, why compare starter rate stats to reliever rate stats (or WPA for that matter), when they are so dissimilar?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Brian says:

      The counterpoint to this argument is that the two starters you mentioned are in fact Cy Young contenders. I.e. while you might be rightfully saying that Cueto and Gio are more deserving candidates, you’re still comparing Kimbrel & Chapman to Cy Young contenders, which to some extent validates the whole debate. The argument would be stronger if you picked starters from 1 or 2 tiers lower, but the reason no one makes the argument with those names is because no one’s confident that say a Jordan Zimmerman or even CC for all his name-value would be able to put up Chapman / Kimbrel-like numbers out of the closer role.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Dave g. says:

    I think you also have to look at

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Dave g. says:

    ….The mets defense when considering dickey. It’s pretty abysmal. And, sorry but cueto plays in a crap division where he gets to face the cubs and Astros in about 6 to 8 starts and a brewer team that does not hit righties. plus he got 2 starts vs Cleve and minn. And he has been very fortunate in Babip. I think we will see him fade down the stretch and it’ll be between gio and dickey.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • bstar says:

      Dave, B-Ref’s WAR system DOES take into account both the pitcher’s defense behind him and the quality of opponents faced. Despite that, Cueto has 5.3 rWAR and Dickey 3.7.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • skip says:

      I would be willing to bet $1,000,000 against $1, that Cueto doesn’t fade down the stretch and easily wins the Cy Young Award. Not only that, but I would be willing to make the same bet that Cueto is far more dominant over the next 3 seasons than Dickey or Gio. Cueto doesn’t get near the respect he deserves, and I personally think he’s in the Top 5 Starters in all of baseball.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. Dave g. says:

    Dickey is also tied or leads the league in Ks, Whip, CGs, shutouts, wins and win pct. Yes, wins are overrated, but when taken with the whole picture, sometimes the obvious choice is the right one. Still a good month and a half for it all to shake out, though.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. NEPP says:

    Short Answer: No

    Long Answer: Hell No.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. sopcod says:

    What do the rules of Cy Young voting say? If all pitchers qualify, then starters should be looked at in the context of starters and relievers in the context of relievers. For everyone who says starters are more important than relievers because they throw more innings, I could just as easily say that relievers are more important because they have so many more appearances. The fact is it’s apples and oranges and it’s unfair to relievers to penalize them because of the role they happen to fill (they don’t exactly get a lot of consideration for MVP either).

    Ideally though there would be a separate award for relievers, with perhaps a maximum innings per appearance and minimum number of appearances.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. Icebox says:

    “Relievers possess a difficult time making noise in the Cy Young Award voting”

    This line made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. Greg says:

    I’d vote for Zimmermann with Cueto a close 2nd. Gio in 3rd and Chapman in 4th.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>