Tuesday, October 10, 2006

2006 Awards

National League MVP: Albert Pujols
It must seem like a broken record to keep calling Albert the best player in the NL, but it's rather a fact. Before I go over Albert's record, I'll deal with his main challengers.
Unlike the AL, though, there aren't a lot of candidates. The big 3 candidates (in the eyes of most) are Albert, Ryan Howard, and Carlos Beltran.
We'll start with Howard. At first, I was dismissive of Howard, because his huge number of strikeouts (181 total) were bringing down his average (and thus his OBP). But in the late months of the season, Howard went on a tear, raising all of his numbers significantly. He finished with not only 58 homers, but a 313/425/659 batting line that's legit regardless of ballparks. The main argument on Howard's behalf is that he "carried" the Phillies back into contention, finishing a close 2nd in the Wild Card race.
If you've read my blog before, you know I'm very dismissive of the idea that one player can "carry" a team, beyond what they do on the field. It is, in my opinion, largely a psychological illusion. Players tend to play as well as their inner level of talent. They may think it's because they're being "carried," but there's no evidence that a superstar payer can help a team win games beyond what they do on the field. It wasn't because of Howard's leadership that Chase Utley is a great player; Howard's charisma didn't turn Cole Hamels from a struggling prospect into a strong, front-line starter. It may seem like it did, because these things all happened at the same time. But just because they happen together, we can't assume that one thing causes another. Trust baseball men to constantly confuse correlation with causation. These are the same people who can point to an on-field fight as the event that "turned the team around." One particularly dedicated analyst went back and documented every significant fight over the past several years, including many famous ones from years past. Teams generally don't play any better after fights than they did before them, all other things considered. See my previous entry on the 2005 NL MVP race for further explanation.
Putting all that "carrying" nonsense aside, my main argument against Howard is not his strikeouts; anyone who hits over .300 with 58 homers is more than compensating for their strikeouts, even 181 of them. It has more to do with his position. Howard is a first baseman; this makes his contribution less "valuable," in the sense that it's easier to find a first baseman who hits 58 homers than a shortstop of the same ilk. Positional adjustments are one of the cornerstones of modern analysis. They don't reflect exactly what happens on the field; obviously, 58 home runs are the same no matter who hits them. But they do reflect value, both monetary and realistic value. And since the name of the award is the Most Valuable Player, we can give extra credit to a shortstop that hits 50 homers, moreso than we would to a first baseman or a DH.
Not only is Howard a first baseman, he's a pretty bad one. The objective and subjective evidence are in agreement here; Howard sucks at first. The good news is that a bad first baseman doesn't hurt a team that much; not nearly so much as a bad shortstop does. But it still hurts. Especially when compared to Albert Pujols who, as we'll mention in a minute, is a much better defender.
If I had to guess today, I'd say that the odds are 90% that either Pujols or Howard wins the award. But there is a dark horse in the race, touted most strongly by the sabermetrics community. His name is Carlos Beltran. I don't give credit or demerit to a player based on his team's status; I don't credit Beltran for making the postseason, and neither do I give him a demerit for playing on a team whose postseason status was never in doubt. Without Howard, the Phillies would not have been contenders. With Beltran, the Mets still would have been. Some people use this as an argument, but I don't think it holds water; it's completely beyond the control of a player who his teammates are, and he doesn't always get to pick his team in the first place. (Beltran did on the free agent market, but Howard did not, getting drafted by Philadelphia). Something like that is completely beyond the control of any player, and giving them extra credit in the MVP race for it is childish and foolish; and yet most voters do it.
No, the argument for Beltran is made mainly on defense. What -- a sabermetrician arguing for defense? Yes, indeed. Beltran hit an amazing 275/388/594, all the more amazing at Shea Stadium, and more valuable since Beltran plays center field, a position where very few players hit like that. But even taking position into account, can Beltran's 275/388/594 really be more valuable than Howard's 313/425/659.
Well, no -- at least, not by itself. So I would say that Howard was the more valuable hitter of the two. But while I've already mentioned Howard's terrible defense, I haven't yet mentioned the fact that Beltran is a great defensive center fielder, rating at 15 Fielding Runs Above Average (FRAA) a remarkable achievement. Beltran also stole 18 bases, getting caught just 3 times. That's not a significant number, but in a close MVP race, it's worth noting.
So is all of that enough to bridge the gap in hitting between Beltran and Howard. I think so, yes. Two different systems of measurement have Beltran well ahead of Howard. Baseball Prospectus has Beltran at 10.4 WARP1, their uber-statistic of total value. Howard rates at 8.5, which shows how large an adjustment WARP makes for position. Bill James' Win Shares stat gives Beltran 38 WS and Howard just 31. It has the two almost identical on hitting Win Shares (30 for Beltran, 29.8 for Howard), but Beltran laps the field on defense (8.3 to Howard's 1.2).
So we can basically say that Carlos Beltran was a more valuable player than Ryan Howard. I wouldn't put them quite so far apart as the WARP and Win Shares suggest, but I would still favor Beltran. Therefore, in a perfect world, Carlos Beltran would be the biggest challenger to Albert Pujols' second consecutive MVP Award.
So what did Albert do to top Carlos "Willie Mays Lite" Beltran?
He did a lot.
Albert hit 331/431/671 this year. That's better even than Howard's line of 313/425/659. Pujols led the league in OBP and slugging, even managing to hit for a .331 average at that. And while strikeouts are generally overrated, compare Pujols' 50 K's to Howard's 181. That's a big difference. Equivalent Average, a stat used to quantify a hitter's total offensive contribution (adjusted for ballpark and context), puts Albert atop the National League as well. Albert's .350 EQA is noticeably better than Howard's .340 or Beltran's .322.
I also mentioned defense before. Albert is a fine defensive first baseman (17 FRAA) while Howard is a terrible defender (-15 FRAA). The difference between them is 32 runs, or nearly 3 wins. Add that to Albert's offensive edge, and there's only one true MVP here.
Just to note, a lot has been made of the fact that Albert missed some time this summer due to injury and thus didn't get as much playing time. However, this effect has been exaggerated. Howard notched 704 PAs (Plate Appearances) this year, compared to Albert's 634. That's a not-insignificant difference, but it's still not able to bridge the gap between the two.
That said, how does Albert stack up against Beltran? We know that Beltran was better than Howard, but so was Albert, by a fair margin. Is Beltran's defense and positional advantage enough to make up for Albert's superior offense?
Ask 10 different people, and they'll probably be pretty split. I've heard both men's names put forth as viable candidates. But I just can't get past the big difference in offense: 331/431/671 for Albert; 275/388/594 for Carlos. A great center fielder is more valuable than a great first baseman, obviously. Beltran gets the edge in steals, although Albert went a decent 7-for-9 himself. I'm going with Phat Albert, and the numbers back me up: Albert's 11.8 WARP1 tops Beltran's 10.4, and his 39 Win Shares led all of baseball; Beltran was just barely behind with 38.
I can see and understand the argument for Beltran, much moreso than the Howard argument. But I'm going with Albert.
Just to note: how about a guy who hit 339/430/568 while playing a decent third base for a contending team? Sounds like someone whose name should be in the MVP picture, right? And yet almost no one mentiones Miguel Cabrera (at least no one in the mainstream), and I have no idea why. He's got the numbers, he's got the performance, and he's got the stud status on a contender that usually makes writers notice him. But unfortunately, no love for Cabrera this year. But I think he was good enough to rate #2.
As for the rest of the list, there aren't many surprises. Some might be surprised to see the pitchers break the list, but the numbers would suggest that they belong there. And as for Garrett Atkins, his amazing year (329/409/556) can't be explained away by Coors Field, which is no longer a hitter's paradise. If he were worth a damn at third base (-14 FRAA), he'd rate even higher, despite the fact that nobody's ever heard of him.
  1. Albert Pujols, Cardinals
  2. Miguel Cabrera, Marlins
  3. Carlos Beltran, Mets
  4. Ryan Howard, Phillies
  5. Lance Berkman, Astros
  6. David Wright, Mets
  7. Chase Utley, Phillies
  8. Roy Oswalt, Astros
  9. Chris Carpenter, Cardinals
  10. Garrett Atkins, Rockies

American League MVP: Derek Jeter
Once again I am, much to my surprise, right with the mainstream. Jeter is one of two main candidates for the AL MVP honors, along with Minnesota's Justin Morneau. This is silly; Morneau is the same story as Ryan Howard -- the whole "carrying the team" B.S. But Morneau actually had a poorer year than Howard, and wasn't even the best player on his own team.
But all that in good time. Let's start with Jeter. The most amazing thing about Jeter is that he has, for the third year in a row, provided decent defense. This is after ten years or so of dreadful defense at shortstop. It's been going on long enough and is corroborated by enough stats that we can't dismiss it as a fluke. Some have suggested it's due to better positioning; some think it's due to the presence of A-Rod to Jeter's right, since Jeter's first turnaround season was also his first with A-Rod at third. Whatever the reason, Jeter's defense is no longer a millstone around the neck of his MVP argument. He doesn't deserve any Gold Gloves, but he plays defense well enough that we can call him an asset at the position and focus on his offense.
Jeter does not hit for a lot of power. His secret to success is working some walks, making contact, and generally getting on base like a madman. Lots of people think Jeter isn't a true "leadoff man," and that the Yankees were better off with Johnny Damon in the role. I don't know what the hell about Jeter is bad for a leadoff man. He strikes out, yes (102 times this year), but he also takes some walks and generally works a pitcher, which is one duty of a leadoff man. He doesn't steal a ton of bases, but he steals enough, and very efficiently at that (34-for-39 this year). He actually stole more bases, and at a better success rate, than Johnny Damon (25-for-35) this year -- the same Damon who's supposed to be a true "leadoff man," whereas Jeter is not.
But I digress. Jeter's strength is his ability to hit for a high average (.344 this year, just missing the batting title) and throwing in enough walks for a good OBP (.417). Jeter's final hitting line is 344/417/483. That may not sound like an MVP -- and in most years it wouldn't be -- but when you consider Jeter's prime defensive position (which he plays surprisingly well) and his extra credit for stolen bases, he's a very good candidate after all.
I mentioned before that Justin Morneau was Jeter's chief rival for the award. In fact, my guess is that Morneau will win. Let's dismiss that right now, shall we?
Morneau hit 321/375/559, while playing first base (adequately) for the Twins (in the hitter-friendly MetroDome). In my opinion, he's an easy dismissal; his extra power is no match for Jeter's better on-base skills and much higher defensive value. But the argument for Morneau centers not just on the "carrying the team" silliness, but on his 34 HR and especially his 130 RBI.
If I could set fire to two baseball statistics, it would be a pitcher's Win-Loss record and the RBI. Because they still somehow have the power to fool otherwise intelligent baseball commentators into accepting the baseball equivalent of the Flat-Earth Theory. I've expounded before about the uselessness of RBIs as compared to other offensive statistics, so I won't belabor the point here. But baseball writers are just as clueless as they ever were (being perhaps the most resistant breed to change, much moreso even than General Managers), and this cluelessness will likely win Morneau an undeserved MVP, just as it did for George Bell, Juan Gonzalez, and countless others. Good as Morneau was (and don't mistake me, he was very good), he wasn't even the best player on his own team.
That was catcher Joe Mauer, and considering the otherwise great reviews he's gotten this year, it's amazing to me that no one's pushing his name ahead of Morneau's. First of all, Mauer hit 347/429/507. Again, not nearly as powerful as Morneau, but more valuable due to his OBP. Mauer also became the first catcher to win the AL batting title -- ever. This is a bit trivial, but it does illustrate a more important point: it's damn hard to find a catcher who hits this well. This, of course, increases Mauer's value exponentially. Add in that he's a very good defensive catcher, and it all comes tumbling down in his favor. Mauer was so good, in fact, that he sometimes makes me reconsider my vote for Jeter. I'm sticking with Derek, but Mauer could make me change my mind. I wouldn't be too upset if either man won.
Another Twin getting a lot of support in the MVP race is Johan Santana. I said before that it was a bit of a slow year for AL MVPs; there were a lot of great seasons, but nobody had a really great season (it happens). It's years like this when a really dominant pitcher can emerge and win the MVP. Can Johan Santana do that?
No, he can't, and I don't think he should.
Santana only won 19 games. Admittedly, writers are getting better at ignoring W-L records, but a 19-win pitcher is a tough bet for the Cy Young. Pitchers who win the MVP simply have to put up big numbers: 25+ wins, a lot of saves, or an astronomically low ERA. Santana has none of these things.
What he has done is have himself a great season, though. It's your typical Johan Santana season, which is to say that it was amazing and great. Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, and he proved it again this year: 2.77 ERA (the 2nd-best in the league was Roy Halladay's 3.19), 245 strikeouts (Jeremy Bonderman was second with 202) and a league-leading 233.2 IP. Santana is a shoo-in for the Cy Young Award (as I'll discuss later), but he's just not the MVP. But I still give him good credit.
There are also the fifty-leven DHs to consider in this race. This was a good year for DHs, with several people posting great numbers and fighting their way into the MVP race regardless of their zero defensive value.
The most popular is David Ortiz. Ortiz hit a very strong 287/413/636. He does play in Boston and contribute nothing defensively, but that's still enough to make the Top 10. Ortiz was a candidate for first-place votes, until two things happened: one, the Red Sox collapsed and fell out of the running; two, Ortiz went public in saying that an MVP shouldn't have to come from a contending team. I agree, but Ortiz was of course talking about himself, and the uncharacteristically self-centered remarks only hurt his already slim chances. The public now percieves Ortiz pretty accurately: one of the best hitters in baseball, but something less than the reincarnation of Christ.
There's also the Comeback Player of the Year winner, Jim Thome. Thome hit 288/416/598 with the White Sox, a pretty amazing feat. It's not quite as good as Ortiz, and Thome's home ballpark helps a bit more than Fenway does for Ortiz. Still, a batting line like that deserves respect.
The man who really should have been voted Comeback Player of the Year is DH Frank Thomas. Thomas hit 270/382/545 for Oakland in his first healthy season in years. But although his position as the guy who "carried" Oakland has gotten him some mild MVP support, he hasn't really earned it. Thomas is probably the 5th-best DH in the league, coming in just behind Jason Giambi, who also had a fine year.
But the best DH in the AL this year might have been the same guy who missed the last month of the season: Travis Hafner. Hafner, hitting 308/439/659, was really the best player in the league through August; better even than Jeter. He ended up leading the league in both OBP and SLG. But since his injury limited him to just 454 ABs, he fell out of the running. But it's amazing enough that he still ended up one of the 10 best players overall.
The only other player to get serious support as the MVP was Jermaine Dye of the White Sox. Dye did have a career year (315/385/622), but not only did the White Sox's collapse end his candidacy (he and Ortiz can commiserate), his candidacy doesn't really hold water. His numbers are great, but he plays in a fine hitter's park in Chicago. He's also a right fielder, which doesn't help his case against guys like Jeter and Mauer.
A quick word on the two names on my list that may be a surprise (at least as far as how high I rated them).
The first is Grady Sizemore. Sizemore is no secret; after last season, Ozzie Guillen called him the best player in the AL Central, and he was mostly correct. In short, Sizemore is Carlos Beltran with lesser defensive skills. He steals some bases (though not as well as Beltran), but hits just as well as his NL counterpart (290/375/533 this year). At age 24, Sizemore will likely grow into one of the best all-around players in baseball, period.
The one who might come as a real surprise is Carlos Guillen. Keith Law's scouting report calls Guillen "one of the best players in baseball," and I'm thrilled that he's finally getting recognition as such. For several years, Guillen has been one of the best-hitting shortstops in baseball -- and that includes Jeter, Tejada, and others. But he never stayed healthy for a full season, so we were never really sure if he was for real. I had begun thinking we would never see a full season's worth of Carlos. Well, in 2006, he obliged and proved that he was for real. He's no wizard at shortstop, but again, the fact that he can hold down the position makes his hitting that much more valuable. Said hitting amounted to an amazing 320/400/519 this year, surprising for roomy Comerica Park. Guillen's probably not really this good; his career batting line is 289/358/440, and he's 31 years old. But even so, he's one of the best shortstops out there, and his career year in 2006 was enough to get him on the Top 10 List.
And here they are:

  1. Derek Jeter, Yankees
  2. Joe Mauer, Twins
  3. Johan Santana, Twins
  4. David Ortiz, Red Sox
  5. Travis Hafner, Indians
  6. Grady Sizemore, Indians
  7. Carlos Guillen, Tigers
  8. Manny Ramirez, Red Sox
  9. Jermaine Dye, White Sox
  10. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays

National League Cy Young: Roy Oswalt
I mentioned in a previous column that just because there's no true candidate for an award doesn't mean they call it off. The NL Cy Young Award this year is a great example. There were several pitchers who had good seasons, and about four or five that had really good seasons. But there wasn't a great season to be found among NL pitchers this year. And so we were never sure who the favorites were, with this race literally coming down to the final weekend, with Oswalt emerging at the fore. Of all the awards, this is the most up-in-the-air.
I picked Oswalt by a paper-thin margin over Chris Carpenter and Brandon Webb. Oswalt finished the season with the best ERA, 2.98. This isn't a huge lead, though, over Carpenter (3.09) and Webb (3.10). Oswalt (166) didn't strike out as many men as Carpenter (184) or Webb (178), but his 38 walks were the fewest of the three. Oswalt allowed more homers than Webb, but less than Carpenter. He also pitched fewer innings than both men, though not by much at all.
That's a pretty damn even three-horse race. It basically comes down to my preference for ERA (and FRA*, which Oswalt leads as well) and BB:K ratio. Oswalt leads all three pitchers in VORP by a fair margin, but is tied for second in Win Shares behind Webb.
Again, this could go either way, and I don't have 100% confidence in my choice. But if I had to pick, I'd pick Oswalt.
With the dearth of starting pitching candidates, some writers have suggested that it may be the year for a relief pitcher to win the award. This has some merit; this happened in 2003, when there were no dominant starters, and Eric Gagne's terrific year as closer won him the Cy Young. So, did anyone have an Eric Gagne-esque year? A year that was so good that it puts them on the board with the starters in the Cy Young race?
Not by a mile. Trevor Hoffman led the league with 46 saves. But then he also led the league with 51 save opportunities, and you already know how I feel about using saves as a measuring stick. Hoffman's ERA was 2.14, which isn't bad at all. But it's only marginally better than Oswalt's 2.98, and you have to have a much bigger difference than that to make up for the fact that Oswalt notched 220.2 IP, while the lightweight Hoffman went 63. Some have suggested that this could be a "lifetime achievement" award for Hoffman. That idea enrages me to the point that I spit in the general direction of anyone who suggests it. These aren't the f***ing Academy Awards. This is baseball, and we should take it seriously. If you want to start a Glee Club start it somewhere else.
Another argument has been put forth for Billy Wagner, the Mets' closer. But Wagner wasn't significantly better than Hoffman (2.24 ERA, but with more innings and strikeouts). The best reliever in the NL was probably L.A.'s Takashi Saito. Saito posted a 2.07 ERA in 78.1 IP (more than Hoffman or Wagner) and allowed only 3 HR (fewer than Hoffman and Wagner) and struck out 101 (more than Hoffman and Wagner). But because Saito didn't start the season as L.A.'s closer, he only managed 24 saves (in 26 chances). Although it should be noted that WXRL, a statistic that measures how much a reliever improved his team's odds of winning (in short**), doesn't give Wagner or Hoffman a big edge over Saito. You'd think that since both Wagner and Hoffman saved 40 games, they'd had a much bigger effect on their team's odds of winning than Saito, who spent half the season in middle relief. But their edge is marginal; about 5.9 to Saito's 5.4. So the edge in saves isn't a big deal, and saves themselves aren't really a big deal, for that matter.
Relievers dismissed!

  1. Roy Oswalt, Astros
  2. Chris Carpenter, Cardinals
  3. Brandon Webb, Diamondbacks
  4. Bronson Arroyo, Reds
  5. John Smoltz, Braves
  6. Aaron Harang, Reds
  7. Jason Schmidt, Giants
  8. Carlos Zambrano, Cubs
  9. Jason Jennings, Rockies
  10. Derek Lowe, Dodgers

* -- FRA is "Fair Run Average." Unlike ERA, it accounts differently for runners left and runners inherited. With ERA, a starting pitcher is given full credit for any runner that scores, even after he leaves the game. Fair Run Average splits the difference; it parcels out some blame to the starting pitcher who left the runners on the mound, and some to the reliever who let them score. A runner left on first that later scores would be more the reliever's fault than the starter's; the opposite would be true for a runner left at third. This is a fairer and more accurate measure than ERA, which gives ALL the blame to the starting pitcher who leaves the runners. This doesn't usually make a big difference. But if you're a starter with a bad bullpen behind you, you're going to see your ERA go up as more of your "bequeathed" runners score. Whereas the exact same pitcher with great bullpen help would have a lower ERA, because his relievers stranded those runners on base.

** -- WXRL is Wins Expected Above Replacement Level, Lineup Adjusted. It tallies how many wins a reliever notched above what a replacement-level reliever would have totalled. The number is adjusted for the quality of hitters a pitcher faced.
The wins themselves are determined by "Win Expectancy." If you plug in the state of a baseball game into the computer, including every facet of the situation, including who is at bat, who's on deck, etc. you can find an likelihood (in percentage form) of winning the game. By taking these factors into account, we could say that the Padres, in the 7th inning of Game 4 of the NLDS, had a 23% chance of winning the game. We get that number because the computer runs the simulated game a million times, and it showed the Padres winning 23% of the time.
Every play of a game, then, changes a team's Win Expectancy. If the first Padre batter makes an out, that decreases the Win Expectancy to, say, 20% (I'm estimating, here). So we would give that hitter credit for -.03 wins (he decreased his team's chance of winning by 3%). If he homers, though, it could increase his team's win expectancy to 40%. That would credit him for +.17 wins.
Both teams start out around 50% (not exactly, because the home team has an inherent advantage) and go from there. As things move on into the later innings, each play becomes more important. This is also true in a close game. If your team is down 4-1 in the 9th with 2 out and the bases loaded, we'll guess that your Win Expectancy is 15%. If you hit a grand slam to win the game, your win expectancy is 100%. In that game alone, the batter gets credited .85 wins (along with what he did in his other at-bats). Win Expectancy is biased toward opportunity -- if you get to bat a lot in the late innings in "clutch" situations, you have an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't.
But WX is great for measuring relief pitching. It lets us know not just saves and strikeouts, but how much each one meant to the team. It lets us know if a pitcher's 40 saves were all easy saves (a 3-run, 9th-inning lead where your team already has a WX of about 95%) or tough ones (bases loaded, one out in the 8th, ahead by one run -- WX of about 52%). We can see how many wins a reliever added over replacement level, bearing in mind that opportunity is still an inherent bias (if you're a 6th-inning middle reliever, you're screwed).
Does your brain hurt yet?

American League Cy Young: Johan Santana
This one's easy! Santana will win and should win. Everything else is just academic.
I mentioned earlier Santana's dominance over the rest of the AL pitchers, so it remains only to justify any controversial picks in my Top 10. Some might be surprised to see me rank Francisco Liriano #3, considering that he pitched just 121 innings. And I did puzzle long and hard over that one. But I think (and the stats agree) that Liriano was so good in his 121 innings that he was more valuable than most of the guys who threw 200. Liriano posted a 2.16 ERA (remember, Santana's league-best total was 2.77) with a 32:144 BB:K ratio and just 9 HR allowed. VORP ranks Liriano as the third-best pitcher in the AL, and I'm not inclined to disagree.
There nothing else really surprising about this list. C.C. Sabathia had a surprisingly good year, as did Curt Schilling and John Lackey, but few people noticed. I rated Mike Mussina ahead of Chien-Ming Wang with some hesitation; but as I've said before, a pitcher that succeeds with a below-average strikeout rate is likely benefitting from luck moreso than skill.
The only reliever that cracks the list is Jon Papelbon of the Red Sox. Papelbon was so good, in fact, that he was rivalling even Santana and Halladay in the early race for the Cy Young. But a September lost to injury relegated him to the bottom of the list. Still, he managed a 0.92 ERA (with an amazing 0.81 FRA), notching 75 strikeouts in 68.1 IP against just 13 walks and 3 HR allowed. Papelbon saved 35 games in 41 chances. His WXRL was second-best among AL closers, implying that his saves weren't generally cheap ones, but ones that "made a difference" for his team.

  1. Johan Santana, Twins
  2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays
  3. Francisco Liriano, Twins
  4. Curt Schilling, Red Sox
  5. C.C. Sabathia, Indians
  6. Mike Mussina, Yankees
  7. Jonathan Papelbon, Red Sox
  8. John Lackey, Angels
  9. Barry Zito, Athletics
  10. Justin Verlander, Tigers

I'll be back later to finish up the awards for this year.

No comments: