- Chicago Cubs Talk

CubsWin · June 8, 2006

To me it appears to be a psychological problem. He's not getting hit hard, he's walking the ballpark in the majors.

I like Tim's idea somewhat, but they have to tell him that he's there to stay and that they are done sending him up and down. Give him a role and see if he can do it.

IMO, he is not worse than Rusch.

Yeah, I agree for the most part. About the only thing left for Hill to do at AAA is to build confidence through consistency, but if it is a mental block on his part, then there is likely more to be gained by having him in middle relief at the major league level.

Rusch has been really good for the Cubs about 75% of the time. Hopefully, Rusch can find his form again and put several strong appearances together and have some trade value at the deadline. Some team is usually looking for left-handed pitching. Then Hill can wet his feet at the big league level on a more consistent basis.

sethuel1 · June 8, 2006

Rusch has been really good for the Cubs about 75% of the time.

Bwahahahahahaha.

10 Start Log

DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB TBF #Pit Dec. Rel. ERA

6/3 @StL W 8-5 5.0 4 3 3 0 2 5 5 4 19 90 W(2-5) -- 6.857

5/28 Atl L 12-13 4.0 6 4 3 2 1 9 2 3 20 83 -- -- 7.054

5/24 @Fla L 3-9 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 12 -- -- 7.091

5/19 @CWS L 1-6 2.1 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 9 48 -- -- 7.313

5/12 SD L 5-10 1.2 7 6 5 0 1 0 4 2 12 40 L(1-5) -- 7.888

5/8 @SD L 3-8 2.1 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 11 47 -- -- 6.750

5/7 @SD L 3-6 1.1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 23 -- -- 7.364

5/4 @Ari L 0-6 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 26 -- -- 7.767

4/29 Mil L 2-16 2.2 6 7 7 4 3 0 3 7 17 81 L(1-4) -- 8.463

4/22 @StL L 1-4 4.2 2 3 3 0 4 3 2 6 20 95 L(1-3) -- 6.407

imb · June 8, 2006

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Jesus.

Mizzou · June 8, 2006

Rusch has been really good for the Cubs about 75% of the time.

More like 10% of the time, if that.

imb · June 9, 2006

going dooooooooooooooooown

CubsWin · June 9, 2006

Bwahahahahahaha.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Jesus.

More like 10% of the time, if that.

going dooooooooooooooooown

That's a lot of laughing and attempted ridicule, but not a lot of knowledge guys.

Look it up for yourselves, as a Cub going into this season, Rusch had been good about 75% of the time. Thems the facts, I'm not making them up.

Certainly, at 6-2 with a 3.47 ERA, we can safely say that Rusch was "good" in 2004. Every pitcher is going to be better some outings than others obviously so I won't dare to say that all of his 32 appearances and 130 innings were "good" however. Of those 32 appearances, he was not good in about 8 of them. That's 75% good appearances and if you calculate the innings pitched during those good outings versus the bad outings its about 110 innings of good outings to 20 innings of bad which comes to 85% good.

He was actually better during 2005, when he was on. Rusch lost it in the middle of the year. It was odd. He was great in the first part of the season, then absolutely terrible and then he seemingly got it back in September and found his stuff again. Had he gotten his 4.52 ERA by being up and down all year long, then the Cubs would have had a lot less reason to resign him this off season, but he wasn't inconsistent throughout the year. He was 5-1 with a 2.07 ERA through June 7th and then he just lost it. He had 3 bad starts in a row and was returned to the bullpen where he continued to struggle. Due to injuries, he was returned to the rotation on August 15th where he promptly lost his next 4 starts. But then something happened and in September he went 4-0 with a 3.47 ERA. On for a long stretch, then off for a long stretch and then on again. 17 of his 46 appearances were not good. Of his 145 innings pitched in 2005, 52 2/3 innings came during that terrible stretch from June 12th to August 31st. That means he was terrible about 37% of the time that season.

So in 68% of his appearances and slightly over 74% of his innings he had been good going into this season. Thems the facts.

Now this year he has clearly lost it again, maybe his man boobs are getting in the way, I don't know. But with the numbers that he has put up in the previous two seasons, logic and facts would tell us that he has a shot of getting it back together again and having some trade value by the deadline. Laugh if you want, but those are the numbers.

I know he has been frustrating so far this season. I'm certainly disappointed, too, but before you ridicule a poster for posting something accurate, you may want to check the facts.

imb · June 9, 2006

Just because you say that the 75% is number is accurate doesn't mean that it is. You might as well have said that during 75% of the innings Glendon Rusch throws, he takes a big plate of spaghetti out to the mound.

2004 - 32 appearances, 21 good, 11 bad. Counted into those 21 good appearances were a few outings that went between a third of an inning and less than two innings. Also, I went ahead and counted a 5 inning, three run game as a "good" appearance, since it counts as a QS, even though I think we both agree that there is nothing good about an ERA north of 4.

In case you were wondering, that works out to 66%

2005 - 46 appearances, 27 good, 19 bad. In those 27 good outings, there were a total of 10 that lasted less than an inning and two-thirds. Those ten outings lasted a combined 8 1/3rd innings, so a more discerning man could count them as maybe two good outings combined, but I'll give you the (huge) benefit of the doubt and count them as 10.

only 59% of those outings were "good".

2006 - 14 outings, 7 good, 7 bad. That works out to a cool 50%. Oh, of the 7 "good" outings, 5 of them didnt go over 2.1 innings.

Since signing with the Cubs, Glendon Rusch has had 55 good outings and 37 bad ones. That is 60%, nowhere close to the 75% you tried to pass off as fact. Nice try though.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Bunts Lick Butts

Banedon · June 9, 2006

Just because you say that the 75% is number is accurate doesn't mean that it is. You might as well have said that during 75% of the innings Glendon Rusch throws, he takes a big plate of spaghetti out to the mound.

2004 - 31 appearances, 21 good, 10 bad. His espn page says 32 appearances, but I only see 31 in the game log. Counted into those 21 good appearances were a few outings that went between a third of an inning and less than two innings. Also, I went ahead and counted a 5 inning, three run game as a "good" appearance, since it counts as a QS, even though I think we both agree that there is nothing good about an ERA north of 4.

In case you were wondering, that works out to 68%

2005 - 46 appearances, 27 good, 19 bad. In those 27 good outings, there were a total of 10 that lasted less than an inning and two-thirds. Those ten outings lasted a combined 8 1/3rd innings, so a more discerning man could count them as maybe two good outings combined, but I'll give you the (huge) benefit of the doubt and count them as 10.

only 59% of those outings were "good".

2006 - 14 outings, 7 good, 7 bad. That works out to a cool 50%. Oh, of the 7 "good" outings, 5 of them didnt go over 2.1 innings.

Since signing with the Cubs, Glendon Rusch has had 55 good outings and 36 bad ones. That is 60%, nowhere close to the 75% you tried to pass off as fact. Nice try though.

Wait wait wait....I thought you were supposed to be the funny guy. Not the stats guy. Get back in your box. :P

imb · June 9, 2006

I found my elusive missing 2004 game, an outing that Rusch gave up 3 runs without recording an out.

Banedon · June 9, 2006

I found my elusive missing 2004 game, an outing that Rusch gave up 3 runs without recording an out.

I had a feeling that it would a be a "no out" outing that would fly under the radar.

Ding Dong Johnson · June 9, 2006

It's as simple as this: the Cubs have never made the playoffs with a player named "Glendon Rusch" on their roster. Never.

CubsWin · June 12, 2006

Just because you say that the 75% is number is accurate doesn't mean that it is.

Wow, you are absolutely right. That's why I showed you all the stats.

Its not too surprising that instead of being magnanimous and simply saying the numbers do show that he has been better for the Cubs than you thought. You actually took the time to go through and name certain outings bad that I didn't. I could list all of his outings and we could quibble about what makes up a bad outing and what doesn't, but I'm not going to do that because I don't have to. You've already proved my point.

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported. So, whether you take my numbers or yours, it doesn't matter.

The facts and stats still show that he is likely to turn things around and perhaps have some value by the trade deadline. Whether he will or not, who knows? Thats just what the numbers say.

abuck1220 · June 12, 2006

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported.

for one, that wasn't your point. your argument was that rusch has been "really good" 75% of the time...not that he had been "good" more often than not. secondly, instead of arguing over what constitutes a good or really good outing, how about we just look at his overall numbers, which are awful.

imb · June 12, 2006

Just because you say that the 75% is number is accurate doesn't mean that it is.
Wow, you are absolutely right. That's why I showed you all the stats.

Its not too surprising that instead of being magnanimous and simply saying the numbers do show that he has been better for the Cubs than you thought. You actually took the time to go through and name certain outings bad that I didn't. I could list all of his outings and we could quibble about what makes up a bad outing and what doesn't, but I'm not going to do that because I don't have to. You've already proved my point.

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported. So, whether you take my numbers or yours, it doesn't matter.

The facts and stats still show that he is likely to turn things around and perhaps have some value by the trade deadline. Whether he will or not, who knows? Thats just what the numbers say.

Hahah, spun numbers? I went beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. I counted several 1/3rd 0 run outings as good. The only ones I counted as "bad" outings were ones that he had an era above 4.50. Those are bad outings, you can ignore it if you want, but you are totally, completely wrong, and lying about it doesnt make it not true. It's not too surprising that instead of saying "hey, i made up this stat", you called me a liar and called the facts "spun numbers". Nice try.

CubsWin · June 13, 2006

Just because you say that the 75% is number is accurate doesn't mean that it is.
Wow, you are absolutely right. That's why I showed you all the stats.

Its not too surprising that instead of being magnanimous and simply saying the numbers do show that he has been better for the Cubs than you thought. You actually took the time to go through and name certain outings bad that I didn't. I could list all of his outings and we could quibble about what makes up a bad outing and what doesn't, but I'm not going to do that because I don't have to. You've already proved my point.

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported. So, whether you take my numbers or yours, it doesn't matter.

The facts and stats still show that he is likely to turn things around and perhaps have some value by the trade deadline. Whether he will or not, who knows? Thats just what the numbers say.

Hahah, spun numbers? I went beyond giving him the benefit of the doubt. I counted several 1/3rd 0 run outings as good. The only ones I counted as "bad" outings were ones that he had an era above 4.50. Those are bad outings, you can ignore it if you want, but you are totally, completely wrong, and lying about it doesnt make it not true. It's not too surprising that instead of saying "hey, i made up this stat", you called me a liar and called the facts "spun numbers". Nice try.

Wow, are we both taking this a little too seriously.

I never made up a stat or lied about anything and it is pretty sad that you would think that I did. If you still think so, prove it. If I did what you say I did, it should be pretty easy.

Everything I wrote was accurate. We may have different definitions of a good or bad outing, but thats it. Aren't you going a little overboard with this one?

As far as the original argument goes, I'll still happily concede to your numbers that support my notion that you were way underselling Rusch and walk away happy.

CubsWin · June 13, 2006

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported.

for one, that wasn't your point. your argument was that rusch has been "really good" 75% of the time...not that he had been "good" more often than not. secondly, instead of arguing over what constitutes a good or really good outing, how about we just look at his overall numbers, which are awful.

No, abuck, that was my point. I originally used the stat, albeit a subjective one, that Rusch has been good about 75% of his time with the Cubs going into this season, to make the point that he may turn things around by the trade deadline and actually have some trade value. I then used it to show how people were forgetting how good he was for much of his time with the Cubs.

I broke down his numbers to give the argument more specificity. But to look at good outings vs. bad outings isn't the best barometer because every pitcher is up and down even in a really good year.

I'm all for looking at overall numbers going into this season so long as we do it with a certain amount of specificity. Just looking at the numbers a pitchers has at year's end doesn't always tell the whole story. But lets start by just doing that.

Do you call 2004 a "good" year for Rusch or a "not good" year? I call 6-2, 3.47 good. Did he have his bad outings? Yes. Do I feel comfortable calling all of his 32 appearances good? No, and that's how I got into the other way of looking at it. But, over all, 2004 was good.

Now how about 2005? Some great, some good, some really bad. And it wasn't all inconsistent and jumbled together either which is weird. If he had wound up with his overall numbers 9-8 4.52 by being up and down from game to game all year long, I would call the year "not good" on the whole. But he was excellent for the first two months plus and then fell apart. This falling apart period hurt the Cubs and it definetly counts against him. And if he had never returned to his 2004 form throughout the entire month of September, I don't think the Cubs should have resigned him this past off season. But he did.

He was excellent from the beginning of the season until June 12th and then basically bad until August 31st, and then consistently good the entire month of September. That's over half the calendar season in which he was consistently good or excellent. That can't be ignored just like we shouldn't ignore how bad he has been this season or for the two and half months last year. But because his 2005 season was so night and day with him being so good in parts of it and so bad in others and because he got it back at the end, it seems inaccurate to me to call it a "not good" season overall. I think it would be more accurate to call it "half good". So, you put a good season in 2004 with a half good season in 2005 and you get 75% of the time. Now that is so unscientific that I had to go with the other method, but that's the way I see his overall numbers.

How do you see them?

Illini Iceman · June 13, 2006

Even using your spun numbers, my point, that Rusch has been good more often than not while a Cub and a whole lot better than you were making him out to be, is still supported.

for one, that wasn't your point. your argument was that rusch has been "really good" 75% of the time...not that he had been "good" more often than not. secondly, instead of arguing over what constitutes a good or really good outing, how about we just look at his overall numbers, which are awful.
No, abuck, that was my point. I originally used the stat, albeit a subjective one, that Rusch has been good about 75% of his time with the Cubs going into this season, to make the point that he may turn things around by the trade deadline and actually have some trade value. I then used it to show how people were forgetting how good he was for much of his time with the Cubs.

I broke down his numbers to give the argument more specificity. But to look at good outings vs. bad outings isn't the best barometer because every pitcher is up and down even in a really good year.

I'm all for looking at overall numbers going into this season so long as we do it with a certain amount of specificity. Just looking at the numbers a pitchers has at year's end doesn't always tell the whole story. But lets start by just doing that.

Do you call 2004 a "good" year for Rusch or a "not good" year? I call 6-2, 3.47 good. Did he have his bad outings? Yes. Do I feel comfortable calling all of his 32 appearances good? No, and that's how I got into the other way of looking at it. But, over all, 2004 was good.

Now how about 2005? Some great, some good, some really bad. And it wasn't all inconsistent and jumbled together either which is weird. If he had wound up with his overall numbers 9-8 4.52 by being up and down from game to game all year long, I would call the year "not good" on the whole. But he was excellent for the first two months plus and then fell apart. This falling apart period hurt the Cubs and it definetly counts against him. And if he had never returned to his 2004 form throughout the entire month of September, I don't think the Cubs should have resigned him this past off season. But he did.

He was excellent from the beginning of the season until June 12th and then basically bad until August 31st, and then consistently good the entire month of September. That's over half the calendar season in which he was consistently good or excellent. That can't be ignored just like we shouldn't ignore how bad he has been this season or for the two and half months last year. But because his 2005 season was so night and day with him being so good in parts of it and so bad in others and because he got it back at the end, it seems inaccurate to me to call it a "not good" season overall. I think it would be more accurate to call it "half good". So, you put a good season in 2004 with a half good season in 2005 and you get 75% of the time. Now that is so unscientific that I had to go with the other method, but that's the way I see his overall numbers.

How do you see them?

I remember him having some really good stretches in the starting rotation in '04 and '05.

That being said, whatever magic fairy dust he found for those stretches must have run out because I can not imagine a pitcher looking worse than Rusch has for most of this year. I have seen less hard hit balls in batting practice than in his last start against the Reds.

CubsWin · June 13, 2006

I remember him having some really good stretches in the starting rotation in '04 and '05.
That being said, whatever magic fairy dust he found for those stretches must have run out because I can not imagine a pitcher looking worse than Rusch has for most of this year. I have seen less hard hit balls in batting practice than in his last start against the Reds.

No doubt, I couldn't agree more.

abuck1220 · June 13, 2006

How do you see them?

terrible. which is what they are.

you seem to want to discount his bad spells with the cubs as if they are the exception. i look at his good spells as the exception. and if you look at the rest of rusch's career, i'd say my view is probably more likely.

CubsWin · June 13, 2006

How do you see them?

terrible. which is what they are.

you seem to want to discount his bad spells with the cubs as if they are the exception. i look at his good spells as the exception. and if you look at the rest of rusch's career, i'd say my view is probably more likely.

Well, I'm of the belief that it is possible for players to improve over time, even as late as their early 30s. They get with the right coach or they figure something out and it finally comes together. In the case of Rusch, he was a power pitcher in his early years and became more of a control/finesse guy later on. It seems that when he has his control, he can be very good, but when he doesn't, boy, is he hittable.

But you are absolutely right, when looking at Rusch's entire career his 1 1/2 good years with the Cubs are the exception, But, unfortunately for your argument, you can say that about other pitchers as well. Look at Scott Eyre's career. And there are others.

Again, if Rusch had put up his numbers in 2005 of 9-8 4.52 by being inconsistent all year long and not one long stretch of excellent pitching, followed by one long stretch of bad pitching and followed up by a consistent month of really good pitching, I'd be more inclined to think that 2004 was a fluke, but that is simply not what happened.

And I take offense to you saying that I "seem to want to discount his bad spells". I don't want to discount anything. How much more plainly can I put it when I wrote...

we shouldn't ignore how bad he has been this season or for the two and half months last year

I have never seen you write how good he was in 2004 and for most of 2005 and say that that can't be ignored. So when are you going to step up to the plate and balance out your view of Rusch like I have? Your position is that he sucks, he has always sucked and the Cubs were stupid for resigning him. That seems a whole heck of a lot more in denial than my position that he seemed to have turn a corner after joining the Cubs and has performed well enough over the last two seasons to think that he might be able to find his control again some time before the trade deadline.

Whether or not his first two seasons with the Cubs turn to be a fluke depends on how he performs from here on out. Can he get his fine-tuned control back? But to look at 2004 and 2005 and to think that this guy may have turned a corner in his career, ala Scott Eyre, after possibly finding the right coach or maturing and gaining some mastery of being a control pitcher isn't an outlandish or unsupportable position to take. The numbers supported it. What they support now is that he has lost it. All I'm saying is that the numbers also support that he has the ability to get it back again. Is that such an impossible position to take?

abuck1220 · June 13, 2006

All I'm saying is that the numbers also support that he has the ability to get it back again.

if that's what you want to believe, fine. we've had this argument before, and i don't know what else to tell you. he was good in 2004...there, i admitted it. you can tell yourself that he was good for most of 2005 all you want, but a 4.50 era and (especially) a 1.57 whip say otherwise.

like i said, i don't know what else to say. glendon rusch was terrible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. his career era is a shade under 5, and his career whip is 1.46. if you can look into those numbers and find hope that he's going to be worth the 4 mil he has left on his contract, knock yourself out.

CubsWin · June 14, 2006

All I'm saying is that the numbers also support that he has the ability to get it back again.

if that's what you want to believe, fine. we've had this argument before, and i don't know what else to tell you. he was good in 2004...there, i admitted it. you can tell yourself that he was good for most of 2005 all you want, but a 4.50 era and (especially) a 1.57 whip say otherwise.

like i said, i don't know what else to say. glendon rusch was terrible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. his career era is a shade under 5, and his career whip is 1.46. if you can look into those numbers and find hope that he's going to be worth the 4 mil he has left on his contract, knock yourself out.

You may not know what else to say, but unfortunately I do. :wink:

I don't have a lot of hope right now that he will be worth the 4 mil that is left on his contract, never said I did, don't know where you got that.

I certainly don't think he was terrible last season. I wouldn't call anyone with a 4.52 ERA terrible. Jason Schmidt had an ERA of 4.40 with a WHIP of 1.42, was he "terrible" last season? Rusch ranked 177th out of 341 National League pitchers in ERA last year. Not good. But not terrible, thats about league average, isn't it? I wouldn't call it good either, and haven't.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that those facts exist. Instead, you will only acknowledge is ERA and WHIP and call them terrible. Calling his entire year terrible in the face of those facts and the knowledge that he wasn't consistently mediocre all year long but instead was excellent for the first 2 1/2 months of the season, then lost it and was terrible for the next 2 1/2 months and then got it back and was consistently good for the last month is an unbalanced opinion that is selectively looking at only the facts that support the opinion you have already formed.

Reply if you like. If there is something faulty with my numbers or logic. But it seems like we are going to agree to disagree.

Banedon · June 14, 2006

Rusch ranked 177th out of 341 National League pitchers in ERA last year. Not good. But not terrible, thats about league average, isn't it? I wouldn't call it good either, and haven't.

Wow....why don't you try to find a more meaningless statistic, because I bet you'd be hard pressed to do it. You used unqualified stats, which means that every pitcher that even threw an inning is in that list.

EDIT: Since ESPN stats don't let me add a filter of minimum innings pitched other than "qualifying", I had to choose a different method. Sorting all of last years pitchers by innings pitched, and looking at the ERA of each of the ones that pitched 140 innings or more, (there 58 of those by the way) only 13 of them had worse ERA's than Glendon. That's not average.

CubsWin · June 14, 2006

Rusch ranked 177th out of 341 National League pitchers in ERA last year. Not good. But not terrible, thats about league average, isn't it? I wouldn't call it good either, and haven't.

Wow....why don't you try to find a more meaningless statistic, because I bet you'd be hard pressed to do it. You used unqualified stats, which means that every pitcher that even threw an inning is in that list.

EDIT: Since ESPN stats don't let me add a filter of minimum innings pitched other than "qualifying", I had to choose a different method. Sorting all of last years pitchers by innings pitched, and looking at the ERA of each of the ones that pitched 140 innings or more, (there 58 of those by the way) only 13 of them had worse ERA's than Glendon. That's not average.

So we should ignore all pitchers with less than 140 IP in an attempt to show what is league average? I agree that the overall ranking I gave of him against all National League pitchers isn't the best stat, but it did give a big picture view of where he fell. The fact of the matter is that a lot of pitchers pitched worse than Rusch did that season. Calling his performance "terrible" is overstating it and inaccurate and that was my point. Had that been the only stat I gave, I would understand how it made my argument weak, but it wasn't the only piece of evidence.

Look, a 4.52 ERA isn't good, no one is saying that it is, but are you agreeing that it qualifies as terrible? Are you saying that Jason Schmidt was "terrible" last season? Or would average or slightly below average more accurately describe his performance? What about the manner in which Glendon compiled his 4.52 ERA, should that be taken into account? I'm asking your opinion and why. I think it does matter because sometimes a player's overall stats on a season don't paint an accurate picture. It seems clear to me that how Rusch got to his final numbers matters in this case because we understand more about his year, not the same or less. We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though. We also get to see that consistently for the entire month of September, he returned to form. That gives a more accurate picture of what he is capable of. Doesn't it?

abuck1220 · June 14, 2006

We see that he was excellent and then lost it. It doesn't help us understand why he lost it, though.

see, you're assuming that he had "it" and that it was somehow "lost." the truth of the matter is he temporarily "lost" the crappy pitching and found a momentary blip of goodness.

it's like when a good player goes into a slump...he has a temporary bad spell...he momentarily "loses" it. except glendon's career has been pretty much awful, so you have to look at a temporary run of effectiveness as you would look at a temporary run of ineffectiveness from a good player.

you seem to be looking at this like cubs management looks at the whole team...refusing to acknowledge the fact that most of the players suck, and believing that they're currently going thru a rough patch that will somehow eventually even out. that's not how it works.

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs