Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Pudge (Fisk) comments- Fisk has harsh words for Mac, Clemens

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

MaineMule

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
5,454
0
Maine of course......
Well said IMO.......

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/ne ... id=4841486

Hall of Fame catcher Carlton Fisk became the latest former player to level criticism at admitted steroids user Mark McGwire. And in the same interview with the Chicago Tribune, Fisk also had strong words for Roger Clemens.

Fisk, who caught 2,226 games spanning 24 seasons for the Boston Red Sox and then the Chicago White Sox, said McGwire's insistence that steroids did not help him total 583 career home runs is "a crock."

"[McGwire] says, 'Well, it doesn't help eye-and-hand coordination.' Well, of course it does," Fisk told the Tribune for Wednesday's editions. "It allows you more acuity physically and mentally and optically. You are going to be stronger and you are going to be better.

"Some of these numbers that are out there are really warped. Should they be considered? You saw how McGwire was viewed in the Hall of Fame voting. If you take the length of time that [steroid users] use that stuff and subtract 15 or 20 home runs a year for those guys, where are their numbers then?"

As part of his admission to using steroids throughout the 1990s, McGwire said last week he believes steroids did not inflate his home run totals and that he took them to heal faster from injuries, which allowed him to remain in the lineup.

"That's a crock," Fisk told the Tribune. "There's a reason they call it performance-enhancing drugs. That's what it does -- performance enhancement. You can be good, but it's going to make you better. You can be average, but it is going to make you good. If you are below average, it is going to make you average. Some guys who went that route got their five-year, $35 million contracts and now are off into the sunset somewhere. Because once they can't use [steroids] anymore, they can't play anymore."

"Try having your knees operated on and catching for 30 years," Fisk added. "Do you think you feel good when you go out there? [McGwire] had to stand around and play first base. So excuuuuuse me."

Fisk's outrage wasn't aimed solely at McGwire. He also was critical of seven-time Cy Young winner Clemens, who has been accused of using PEDs. The former trainer of the 353-game winner has said he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH over a period of several years, a claim Clemens has vehemently denied.

"The reason he got let go from the Red Sox [after the 1996 season] was because he was starting to break down," Fisk told the Tribune. "His last couple of years in Boston just weren't very productive, a la 'The Rocket.' Then all of a sudden he goes to Toronto and he wants to show somebody something. Then he gets two consecutive Cy Young Awards [in '97 and '98]. Come on, give me a bucket.

"It's obvious to players. You notice that stuff. You know how hard it is to play the game. You know how hard it is to be productive at any age, but especially at an older age. You see guys who are as productive later on as they were early [in their careers]. It offends guys that stayed clean."
 

pigskincardboard

New member
Nov 4, 2009
5,444
0
Toronto
"It allows you more acuity physically and mentally and optically. You are going to be stronger and you are going to be better.

I agree with his sentiments, but that's clearly an outright falsity.

It doesn't help hand-eye coordination, but it does help you get to the ball faster and with more power. Obviously, this turns great players into legends. It's impossible to predict what someone would've hit if they would've been clean.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the ethics of this situation for years now, and I still haven't the slightest idea what's right and what's wrong.

..because I hate Deion Sanders so very much, I love Carlton Fisk:

"I just told him [Deion Sanders] I thought that there was a right way and a wrong way to play the game, and he was playing it wrong, because it offended guys like me. And if he didn't care to play it right, let's go at it, right here at home plate,"
 

matfanofold

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
7,645
1
Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about this kind of thing...

On one hand, I think they should just be diplomatic about the situation and keep individual names out of it, and let the chips fall where they may with certin players.

But on the other hand, someone like Fisk has earned the right to voice an opinion on the matter, so...

Yet, I just can help feel its low class to spew venom.

However, it is a blight on the face of the game so I can understand feeling harshly towards them.

Bottom line is, I cant help but feel that Fisk should just keep his trap shut unless he is going to be more proactive about the situation and less singular in his personal witch hunt. Just a gut feeling, but I'll go with it.
 

matfanofold

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
7,645
1
pigskincardboard said:
"It allows you more acuity physically and mentally and optically. You are going to be stronger and you are going to be better.

I agree with his sentiments, but that's clearly an outright falsity.


I dont think it is...

If it's truely a performance enhancment drug, then it will make you better. It will make your muscles more active and reactive, and since hand/eye coordination is partly based on reflex, that is based on muscle performance, then it should provide somewhat better results. Also, it clearly helps you physically, but I agree it helps you mentally also. If it helps you be in better shape, and better condition, healthier quicker, than that has to have a mental boost on your perception of ability, no? So I believe everything Fisk said is accurate.
 

MaineMule

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
5,454
0
Maine of course......
MaineMule said:
Well said IMO.......

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/ne ... id=4841486

"Try having your knees operated on and catching for 30 years," Fisk added. "Do you think you feel good when you go out there? [McGwire] had to stand around and play first base. So excuuuuuse me."


Fisk was a player who did hang around into his mid-40's and his body clearly paid the price for doing so. As he retired in the early 90's before steroids came into the forefront, I wonder what his thinking would have been at the time had they been available to help him heal and recover from injury quicker.

I do respect him for speaking his mind, assuming he really is totally clean.
 

pigskincardboard

New member
Nov 4, 2009
5,444
0
Toronto
sportscardtheory said:
PEDs make players better at what they do. Details as to what they in fact enhance are absolutely pointless. Anyone who thinks they don't make players better is a bleeping moron.

Obviously performance enhancing drugs improve performance, that's hardly the point. The question at hand is how these drugs improve performance and to what extent. Fisk overstepped with his assertion, but I agree with the fundamental argument. When you start making broad statements regarding positive steroidal effect on neuro-pathways and ocular proficiency, you're just preying on societal ignorance. The anti-steroids movement uses many of the negative effects of steroids on mental/memory-formation/focus to support their beliefs. Thus, claiming that they enhance these aspects just seems counterintuitive.

While steroids were banned by law, the MLB didn't outlaw them as performance enhancing drugs until far too late. The question becomes: Is a person that took steroids with a valid prescription deemed a cheater? He was well within his right to take said steroids, even if they did enhance his performance. Many players have undergone laser eye surgery, a physical procedure rather than chemical alternative, with terrific results. If a player was legally taking a PED through prescription, how does that differ?

If a player has used steroids after the ban was instituted, are we to forget his entire career and operate under the assumption that he was cheating the entire time? If so, institute a life-time ban.

The truth is, no one can say with absolute certainty how much steroids improve baseline performance, and thus we're left to guess. While it's clear that McGwire's baseline performance was enhanced, it's impossible to tell by how much.

Steroids aren't a magical cure-all -- Players still have to put in the time and hours to succeed. I understand where McGwire's coming from because, his results were more due to his intense work-out regime, which of course isn't possible without steroids.

Steroids didn't make Mark McGwire a better baseball player, they simply allowed him to dedicate more time to honing his craft. It's tough to fault a player for succumbing to a pill that allows him to practice more often, but that's exactly the case.

The simple act of taking steroids doesn't make you better at baseball past a certain baseline. Practicing makes you better at baseball; Steroids etc. just allow you to practice more often.

It's a razor thin line and any clean player has every right to knock dirty players, but steroids has just been made into demonic magical pill that make you spectacular at baseball. People eat up good vs. evil like candy because they're idiots. If more time was spent on the gray area, steroids never would've even been in baseball.
 
how does he figure that steroids help hit 15-20 home runs per year? and if so then wouldnt bonds palmerio (hits wise) and mcgwire still get in the hall? the bigger problem to me is that no one cares that players were popping greenies like skittles. those would increase your day to day performance as much if not more than steroids. to me if steroids are cheating then greenies are cheating and we need to strike those that used those from the hall of fame... to me playing into your 40's and not missing to many games would certainly place you in this category of suspicion!
 

sportscardtheory

Active member
Aug 16, 2008
8,461
2
Buffalo, New York
notjomommasclint said:
how does he figure that steroids help hit 15-20 home runs per year? and if so then wouldnt bonds palmerio (hits wise) and mcgwire still get in the hall? the bigger problem to me is that no one cares that players were popping greenies like skittles. those would increase your day to day performance as much if not more than steroids. to me if steroids are cheating then greenies are cheating and we need to strike those that used those from the hall of fame... to me playing into your 40's and not missing to many games would certainly place you in this category of suspicion!

Sounds great! Now go round up all the unequivocal proof showing which players took them and we'll be well on our way to ridding the Hall of the greenie users. Have fun!
 
sportscardtheory said:
notjomommasclint said:
how does he figure that steroids help hit 15-20 home runs per year? and if so then wouldnt bonds palmerio (hits wise) and mcgwire still get in the hall? the bigger problem to me is that no one cares that players were popping greenies like skittles. those would increase your day to day performance as much if not more than steroids. to me if steroids are cheating then greenies are cheating and we need to strike those that used those from the hall of fame... to me playing into your 40's and not missing to many games would certainly place you in this category of suspicion!

Sounds great! Now go round up all the unequivocal proof showing which players took them and we'll be well on our way to ridding the Hall of the greenie users. Have fun!

you prove to me that there is NOT a steroid user in the hall of fame right now. lets not forget jose canseco did not invent steroids... nor did he introduce them to major leaguers... greenies = steroids
 

pigskincardboard

New member
Nov 4, 2009
5,444
0
Toronto
sportscardtheory said:
notjomommasclint said:
how does he figure that steroids help hit 15-20 home runs per year? and if so then wouldnt bonds palmerio (hits wise) and mcgwire still get in the hall? the bigger problem to me is that no one cares that players were popping greenies like skittles. those would increase your day to day performance as much if not more than steroids. to me if steroids are cheating then greenies are cheating and we need to strike those that used those from the hall of fame... to me playing into your 40's and not missing to many games would certainly place you in this category of suspicion!

Sounds great! Now go round up all the unequivocal proof showing which players took them and we'll be well on our way to ridding the Hall of the greenie users. Have fun!

A great way to do that would to take a Hall of Fame-wide survey with anonymity absolutely assured, then accidentally leak it to the press. That's a great way to gather indisputable proof, or so I've heard.

Keep perpetuating the double-standard through sarcastic remarks, it definitely helps public perception.

If modern players didn't take initiative, the MLB would still be denying that a problem even existed. They'd be too busy playing in their record earnings, of course.
 

sportscardtheory

Active member
Aug 16, 2008
8,461
2
Buffalo, New York
pigskincardboard said:
sportscardtheory said:
PEDs make players better at what they do. Details as to what they in fact enhance are absolutely pointless. Anyone who thinks they don't make players better is a bleeping moron.

Obviously performance enhancing drugs improve performance, that's hardly the point. The question at hand is how these drugs improve performance and to what extent. Fisk overstepped with his assertion, but I agree with the fundamental argument. When you start making broad statements regarding positive steroidal effect on neuro-pathways and ocular proficiency, you're just preying on societal ignorance. The anti-steroids movement uses many of the negative effects of steroids on mental/memory-formation/focus to support their beliefs. Thus, claiming that they enhance these aspects just seems counterintuitive.

While steroids were banned by law, the MLB didn't outlaw them as performance enhancing drugs until far too late. The question becomes: Is a person that took steroids with a valid prescription deemed a cheater? He was well within his right to take said steroids, even if they did enhance his performance. Many players have undergone laser eye surgery, a physical procedure rather than chemical alternative, with terrific results. If a player was legally taking a PED through prescription, how does that differ?

If a player has used steroids after the ban was instituted, are we to forget his entire career and operate under the assumption that he was cheating the entire time? If so, institute a life-time ban.

The truth is, no one can say with absolute certainty how much steroids improve baseline performance, and thus we're left to guess. While it's clear that McGwire's baseline performance was enhanced, it's impossible to tell by how much.

Steroids aren't a magical cure-all -- Players still have to put in the time and hours to succeed. I understand where McGwire's coming from because, his results were more due to his intense work-out regime, which of course isn't possible without steroids.

Steroids didn't make Mark McGwire a better baseball player, they simply allowed him to dedicate more time to honing his craft. It's tough to fault a player for succumbing to a pill that allows him to practice more often, but that's exactly the case.

The simple act of taking steroids doesn't make you better at baseball past a certain baseline. Practicing makes you better at baseball; Steroids etc. just allow you to practice more often.

It's a razor thin line and any clean player has every right to knock dirty players, but steroids has just been made into demonic magical pill that make you spectacular at baseball. People eat up good vs. evil like candy because they're idiots. If more time was spent on the gray area, steroids never would've even been in baseball.

No one is saying that it doesn't take hard work to maximize the full potential of PEDs. Of course it takes hard work and extreme dedication. No one is saying it's a "magic pill" or substance.

How on earth can you say the only thing PEDs do is help you practice longer??? That is absolutely ridiculous. Just because someone works out longer than everyone else doesn't make them better baseball players. That is ludicrous. Bat speed and pure power in addition to a good batters eye is really all that is needed to be a fantastic baseball player, and PEDs make at least two of those three better.

Barry Bonds

1986-1998 (age 21-33) It's fair to assume he started juicing around '98-'99
35 HRs 104 RBIs per 162 games .411 OBP

1999-2004 (age 34-39) It's fair to assume he stopped juicing before the start of the '05 season
58 HRs 125 RBIs per 162 games .517 OBP

So you mean to tell me that just from working out "longer" from 1999-2004 he was able to hit 23 MORE homeruns per season with 21 MORE RBIs per season while increasing his OBP by .116? How much "LONGER" could he have possibly worked out to create such astonishingly higher production??? And all while at the "downturn" of a player's career.

Clearly PEDs make you better at WHATEVER physical activity you do, including working out, which in turn makes you hit the ball farther. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe PEDs make you better at working out but not at baseball.
 

sportscardtheory

Active member
Aug 16, 2008
8,461
2
Buffalo, New York
notjomommasclint said:
sportscardtheory said:
notjomommasclint said:
how does he figure that steroids help hit 15-20 home runs per year? and if so then wouldnt bonds palmerio (hits wise) and mcgwire still get in the hall? the bigger problem to me is that no one cares that players were popping greenies like skittles. those would increase your day to day performance as much if not more than steroids. to me if steroids are cheating then greenies are cheating and we need to strike those that used those from the hall of fame... to me playing into your 40's and not missing to many games would certainly place you in this category of suspicion!

Sounds great! Now go round up all the unequivocal proof showing which players took them and we'll be well on our way to ridding the Hall of the greenie users. Have fun!

you prove to me that there is NOT a steroid user in the hall of fame right now. lets not forget jose canseco did not invent steroids... nor did he introduce them to major leaguers... greenies = steroids

lol You are the one making the accusation, why the hell would it be my job to prove you wrong. I know players took them, but how on earth would anyone be able to find proof now.
 

pigskincardboard

New member
Nov 4, 2009
5,444
0
Toronto
sportscardtheory said:
pigskincardboard said:
sportscardtheory said:
PEDs make players better at what they do. Details as to what they in fact enhance are absolutely pointless. Anyone who thinks they don't make players better is a bleeping moron.

Obviously performance enhancing drugs improve performance, that's hardly the point. The question at hand is how these drugs improve performance and to what extent. Fisk overstepped with his assertion, but I agree with the fundamental argument. When you start making broad statements regarding positive steroidal effect on neuro-pathways and ocular proficiency, you're just preying on societal ignorance. The anti-steroids movement uses many of the negative effects of steroids on mental/memory-formation/focus to support their beliefs. Thus, claiming that they enhance these aspects just seems counterintuitive.

While steroids were banned by law, the MLB didn't outlaw them as performance enhancing drugs until far too late. The question becomes: Is a person that took steroids with a valid prescription deemed a cheater? He was well within his right to take said steroids, even if they did enhance his performance. Many players have undergone laser eye surgery, a physical procedure rather than chemical alternative, with terrific results. If a player was legally taking a PED through prescription, how does that differ?

If a player has used steroids after the ban was instituted, are we to forget his entire career and operate under the assumption that he was cheating the entire time? If so, institute a life-time ban.

The truth is, no one can say with absolute certainty how much steroids improve baseline performance, and thus we're left to guess. While it's clear that McGwire's baseline performance was enhanced, it's impossible to tell by how much.

Steroids aren't a magical cure-all -- Players still have to put in the time and hours to succeed. I understand where McGwire's coming from because, his results were more due to his intense work-out regime, which of course isn't possible without steroids.

Steroids didn't make Mark McGwire a better baseball player, they simply allowed him to dedicate more time to honing his craft. It's tough to fault a player for succumbing to a pill that allows him to practice more often, but that's exactly the case.

The simple act of taking steroids doesn't make you better at baseball past a certain baseline. Practicing makes you better at baseball; Steroids etc. just allow you to practice more often.

It's a razor thin line and any clean player has every right to knock dirty players, but steroids has just been made into demonic magical pill that make you spectacular at baseball. People eat up good vs. evil like candy because they're idiots. If more time was spent on the gray area, steroids never would've even been in baseball.

No one is saying that it doesn't take hard work to maximize the full potential of PEDs. Of course it takes hard work and extreme dedication. No one is saying it's a "magic pill" or substance.

How on earth can you say the only thing PEDs do is help you practice longer??? That is absolutely ridiculous. Just because someone works out longer than everyone else doesn't make them better baseball players. That is ludicrous. Bat speed and pure power in addition to a good batters eye is really all that is needed to be a fantastic baseball player, and PEDs make at least two of those three better.

Barry Bonds

1986-1998 (age 21-33) It's fair to assume he started juicing around '98-'99
35 HRs 104 RBIs per 162 games .411 OBP

1999-2004 (age 34-39) It's fair to assume he stopped juicing before the start of the '05 season
58 HRs 125 RBIs per 162 games .517 OBP

So you mean to tell me that just from working out "longer" from 1999-2004 he was able to hit 23 MORE homeruns per season with 21 MORE RBIs per season while increasing his OBP by .116? How much "LONGER" could he have possibly worked out to create such astonishingly higher production??? And all while at the "downturn" of a player's career.

Clearly PEDs make you better at WHATEVER physical activity you do, including working out, which in turn makes you hit the ball farther. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe PEDs make you better at working out but not at baseball.

Based on your response, you clearly haven't digested what I've said. Please, humour me by picking up a book on human physiology and the impact of steroids and get back to me.

Why do you keep quoting longer by the way? I don't recall saying longer, although longer is generally implied when you say more often. Either way, indiscriminate quoting is one of my pet peeves.

As for Barry Bonds, I really haven't the slightest clue as to what he put into his body -- That's why for the most part, I spoke of steroids.

You can quote me all the magical statistics you wan't, but as any educated man would know, statistics lie. Deciding that all variables other than PED use are static is also a gigantic leap. Remember! Correlation != Causation.

Somehow, through a series of levers and pulleys I'm sure, you decided that I said steroids only make you better at working out, which of course isn't the case.
 

Donutme

Member
Aug 9, 2008
668
13
California
notjomommasclint said:
honest question here! if steroids make a hitter 20hr better would it make a pitcher 5-9 wins better?

Funny ...

If a player can hit the ball 330 feet it is an HR - with juice 550 feet - towering bombs

If a pitcher is juicing - throwing 95 - 99 .... would he throw 105 to 109 .... with his extra strength ?
 

Anthony K.

New member
Aug 7, 2008
5,031
0
Enterprise, Alabama
sportscardtheory said:
pigskincardboard said:
sportscardtheory said:
PEDs make players better at what they do. Details as to what they in fact enhance are absolutely pointless. Anyone who thinks they don't make players better is a bleeping moron.

Obviously performance enhancing drugs improve performance, that's hardly the point. The question at hand is how these drugs improve performance and to what extent. Fisk overstepped with his assertion, but I agree with the fundamental argument. When you start making broad statements regarding positive steroidal effect on neuro-pathways and ocular proficiency, you're just preying on societal ignorance. The anti-steroids movement uses many of the negative effects of steroids on mental/memory-formation/focus to support their beliefs. Thus, claiming that they enhance these aspects just seems counterintuitive.

While steroids were banned by law, the MLB didn't outlaw them as performance enhancing drugs until far too late. The question becomes: Is a person that took steroids with a valid prescription deemed a cheater? He was well within his right to take said steroids, even if they did enhance his performance. Many players have undergone laser eye surgery, a physical procedure rather than chemical alternative, with terrific results. If a player was legally taking a PED through prescription, how does that differ?

If a player has used steroids after the ban was instituted, are we to forget his entire career and operate under the assumption that he was cheating the entire time? If so, institute a life-time ban.

The truth is, no one can say with absolute certainty how much steroids improve baseline performance, and thus we're left to guess. While it's clear that McGwire's baseline performance was enhanced, it's impossible to tell by how much.

Steroids aren't a magical cure-all -- Players still have to put in the time and hours to succeed. I understand where McGwire's coming from because, his results were more due to his intense work-out regime, which of course isn't possible without steroids.

Steroids didn't make Mark McGwire a better baseball player, they simply allowed him to dedicate more time to honing his craft. It's tough to fault a player for succumbing to a pill that allows him to practice more often, but that's exactly the case.

The simple act of taking steroids doesn't make you better at baseball past a certain baseline. Practicing makes you better at baseball; Steroids etc. just allow you to practice more often.

It's a razor thin line and any clean player has every right to knock dirty players, but steroids has just been made into demonic magical pill that make you spectacular at baseball. People eat up good vs. evil like candy because they're idiots. If more time was spent on the gray area, steroids never would've even been in baseball.

No one is saying that it doesn't take hard work to maximize the full potential of PEDs. Of course it takes hard work and extreme dedication. No one is saying it's a "magic pill" or substance.

How on earth can you say the only thing PEDs do is help you practice longer??? That is absolutely ridiculous. Just because someone works out longer than everyone else doesn't make them better baseball players. That is ludicrous. Bat speed and pure power in addition to a good batters eye is really all that is needed to be a fantastic baseball player, and PEDs make at least two of those three better.

Barry Bonds

1986-1998 (age 21-33) It's fair to assume he started juicing around '98-'99
35 HRs 104 RBIs per 162 games .411 OBP

1999-2004 (age 34-39) It's fair to assume he stopped juicing before the start of the '05 season
58 HRs 125 RBIs per 162 games .517 OBP

So you mean to tell me that just from working out "longer" from 1999-2004 he was able to hit 23 MORE homeruns per season with 21 MORE RBIs per season while increasing his OBP by .116? How much "LONGER" could he have possibly worked out to create such astonishingly higher production??? And all while at the "downturn" of a player's career.

Clearly PEDs make you better at WHATEVER physical activity you do, including working out, which in turn makes you hit the ball farther. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe PEDs make you better at working out but not at baseball.

I would say that Bond, in reality, from 2000-2004 took steroids. In '99, he only hit 34 homers, batted .262 and had his lowest OPS since '92.

His real home run boon didn't happen until 2000 and, minus the 73 homer season, he only averaged 46 home runs a season.

Obviously, the 73 homer season is marred by his use of some sort of PED, but it is more of an anomaly then anything.

Should he have been hitting 45 or more home runs any year past the age of 35? Probably not. But let's not forget that when he was 41 & 42 he hit 28 and 26 homers, respectively, and that was after having surgery at the age of 40.

And if you REALLY look at the stats, Bonds didn't come into his own until he was 25. From ages 21-24, he averaged less than 60 RBI a season and 21 homers a season. so let's throw those formative years out.

Let's focus on 1990-1999 & then 2000-2004 (his steroid years, even if he is rumored to have started in 1999).

Averages from 90-99 : 36 homers, 108 RBI, .302 BA, 1.036 OPS and 34 SB
Averages from 00-04 : 52 homers, 102 RBI, .339 BA, 1.316 OPS and 9 SB

Obviously, his OPS went up because he hit more homers, but also because he was walked at an astronomical rate, including 232 walks at the age of THIRTY NINE (and if you count his last two full seasons, he lead the league in walks both of those seasons as well). Not to mention, only one RBI total from 00-04 would even land in his top 5 RBI season totals for his career. The gap looks much larger in your stats because you use the years where he never cracked 60 RBI.

I would contest that his OBP wasn't so much improved because of his PED use, but more so from the scare that he brought to major league pitchers that led to him being walked so often.

Now, please don't see this as me arguing AGAINST him using PED's. I fully recognize he did, I just don't think they helped him AS much as everyone tries to make it out, outside of his 73 homer season.

As for the bolded statement: I completely agree. The stronger you are, the harder and farther you can hit a ball. The only thing we cannot prove is that PED's/steroids improve your hand eye coordination enough to make you hit a baseball at a higher rate then before.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top