The Tale of the Single Digit PERs - Why We Suck Right Now and Why We'll Get Better

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boob-No-More

Boob-No-More

Why you no hire big man coach?
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
19,094
Likes
22,765
Points
113
I'll start with a disclaimer: I am well aware that PER isn't a perfect one-size-fits-all stat. I am aware of it's limitations and weaknesses. That said, if you understand it's limitations, it can be useful. Hollinger's PER formula is an "all-in-one basketball rating, which attempts to boil down all of a player's contributions into one number".

It incorporates all the major stats, uses a weighted formula, adjusts for pace and normalizes for minutes played. The formula yields a PER for the league average player of 15.0. Since the formula includes all of shooting percentages, points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and turnovers, if you do at least one thing above average and don't totally suck at everything else, you should have a PER of at least 10. Hollinger readily admits the formula is largely a measure of a players offensive contributions and "that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen".

So, unless you're an elite lock down defender (Bruce Bowen, Tony Allen, etc.), if you have a single digit PER and are part of your team's regular rotation, your performance is hurting your team.

Last season we only had one player (Noah Vonleh) in our top 10 (in minutes played) with a single digit PER. For the entire 82 game schedule, that was 1174 minutes played, by players in our top 10, with single digit PERs.

Right now, through 15 games, we currently have 1150 minutes played, by players in our top 10, with single digit PERs.

If you have a couple guys in your rotation that aren't pulling their weight, you can survive it. It's no big deal. Most teams, even the good ones, have a couple guys in their top 10 with single digit PERs. No other team in the entire league had 5 guys in their top 10 with single digit PERs. Right now, the bottom half of our rotation is the worst in the entire league and it's not even really close. Forget earning their pay, these guys don't even deserve playing time. Of course the problem is, you have to give those minutes to somebody and ALL the guys who are getting those minutes suck, both collectively and individually.

Here are the culprits:

Evan Turner:
Minutes Played = 363
PER = 9.5

Ed Davis:
Minutes Played = 225
PER = 7.2

Al-Farouq Aminu:
Minutes Played = 209
PER = 8.3

Meyers Leonard:
Minutes Played = 202
PER = 8.6

Noah Vonleh:
Minutes Played = 151
PER = 7.6

No other team in the league has more than 4 players in their top 10 with single digit PERs.

The good news is none of these guys are old enough to be past their primes and none are in the kind of physical decline that would prevent them from regressing to their career norms. In fact, Turner, Davis and Leonard (along with Crabbe) have all increased their PER based on their most recent play. They are already heading in the right direction. While there is no guarantee that all five players will get back to their career average PER by the end of the season, the majority of then should at least be headed in that direction.

Here's how their current PER compares to their career averages and last two seasons:

Evan Turner:
Current PER = 9.5
Career PER = 12.4
2014-15 PER = 12.8
2015-15 PER = 13.6

Ed Davis:
Current PER = 7.2
Career PER = 17.0
2014-15 PER = 20.0
2015-15 PER = 18.7

Al-Farouq Aminu:
Current PER = 8.3
Career PER = 12.4
2014-15 PER = 14.4
2015-15 PER = 12.7

Meyers Leonard:
Current PER = 8.6
Career PER = 12.0
2014-15 PER = 14.8
2015-15 PER = 11.3

Noah Vonleh:
Current PER = 7.6
Career PER = 9.3
2014-15 PER = 13.2
2015-15 PER = 8.6

You can see that all five players aren't only performing below their career averages, they are also currently less productive than they have been in any recent season. It would be highly unusual for all five players, given their relatively young ages, to all fall off this dramatically in the same year.

We don't need, nor should we expect, them all to turn their seasons around, but if we can get two or three of them back close to their recent performance, it will help this team turn their season around. It will also increase their trade value.

BNM
 
Last edited:
You need to check the possibility that we hold our opponents to low PERS. Somehow you need to invent a stat of "difference in PERs." ...ours minus theirs, either for the team, or for each player.
 
A couple other observations:

GSW and CHI are the only teams with no single digit PER players in their top 10. GSW has none in their top 12 and CHI has no one below PER = 11.0 in their top 11.

In terms of unproductive players in their rotation, WAS is the 2nd worst team in the league. They only have two players in their top 10 with single digit PERs, but they have 2 more at exactly 10.0 and one at 10.1.

My first post highlights just how bad we are at the power forward position. We have been splitting those minutes between four players (Aminu, Davis, Leonard and Vonleh). Those four players all have PERs less than 9. We need at least two of them to turn their season around, and/or, we need a trade to address our weakness up front. We all know that, but I didn't realize how bad our power forward play has been until I looked at those numbers. I at least expected Ed Davis to be his steady, productive self. He hasn't been close. Even more than Evan Turner, Ed Davis has been the biggest disappointment for me so far this season.

BNM
 
jlprk said:
You need to check the possibility that we hold our opponents to low PERS. Somehow you need to invent a stat of "difference in PERs." ...ours minus theirs, either for the team, or for each player.
Click to expand...

I'll let you do that, but with the worst defense in the league, I suspect we aren't holding our opponents to low PERs or low anything else.

BNM
 
I'm not sure PER is a reliable stat.

Certainly, it is not as telling as the S2 LPP (likes per post) stat.
For example:
jlprk 24,641 posts, 2,471 likes for a LPP of .100
homerloveskoolaid 5070 posts, 2875 likes for an LPP of .567

The LPP stat is nearly as important as the A2M stat made famous by marzool.
 
HomerLovesKoolAid said:
I'm not sure PER is a reliable stat.

Certainly, it is not as telling as the S2 LPP (likes per post) stat.
For example:
jlprk 24,641 posts, 2,471 likes for a LPP of .100
homerloveskoolaid 5070 posts, 2875 likes for an LPP of .567

The LPP stat is nearly as important as the A2M stat made famous by marzool.
Click to expand...

Back when men were men, Frosted Flakes were Sugar Frosted Flakes, and Golden Crisp was Sugar Crisp, real Americans didn't Like each other, they read each other like a book. We watched "The $64,000 Question" on TV when that was real money. Then you came along with your cartoon avatar and pulled in more message board ratings than Lion King. This generation has it soft, and I'm sticking with my old original Twinkies in the closet, not the new-fangled ones in the store.
 
Boob-No-More said:
I'll let you do that, but with the worst defense in the league, I suspect we aren't holding our opponents to low PERs or low anything else.
Click to expand...

NBA.com's definition of efficiency points is points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks - turnovers - missed FGs - missed FTs.

Here is each team's difference from its opponents so far this season. If you see a correlation to win-loss percentage, tell me.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/opponentstats/17/7/diffeff/1-1
 
Another interesting note: PHI only has one player in their top 10 with a single digit PER. The problem in PHI is their best four players are 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th in minutes played. Their best two, Okafor and Embiid, are on minute restrictions due to past injury concerns and, therefore 10th and 11th in minutes played. It also doesn't help that their four best players are all front court players - an that's without Noel playing a single minute this season.

There REALLY needs to be a trade between PHI and POR to help balance both rosters. We desparately need front court help and they seriously need some decent perimeter players.

BNM
 
jlprk said:
Back when men were men, Frosted Flakes were Sugar Frosted Flakes, and Golden Crisp was Sugar Crisp, real Americans didn't Like each other, they read each other like a book. We watched "The $64,000 Question" on TV when that was real money. Then you came along with your cartoon avatar and pulled in more message board ratings than Lion King. This generation has it soft, and I'm sticking with my old original Twinkies in the closet, not the new-fangled ones in the store.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Bob Whitsitt has no cartoon appeal?
 
jlprk said:
Back when men were men, Frosted Flakes were Sugar Frosted Flakes, and Golden Crisp was Sugar Crisp, real Americans didn't Like each other, they read each other like a book. We watched "The $64,000 Question" on TV when that was real money. Then you came along with your cartoon avatar and pulled in more message board ratings than Lion King. This generation has it soft, and I'm sticking with my old original Twinkies in the closet, not the new-fangled ones in the store.
Click to expand...

And another thing. If you're hiding Twinkies, it may be time to come out of the closet.
 
A few years ago when Hostess announced it would stop making them, I had just bought a box at Costco. Knowing the treasure in my closet, I secretly hid the future antique beneath a musty trap door. The IRS knows nothing of my off-the-books wealth. Only one remains, and it may be the only specimen future generations of archaeologists will get to see in a museum.
 
jlprk said:
A few years ago when Hostess announced it would stop making them, I had just bought a box at Costco. Knowing the treasure in my closet, I secretly hid the future antique beneath a musty trap door. The IRS knows nothing of my off-the-books wealth. Only one remains, and it may be the only specimen future generations of archaeologists will get to see in a museum.
Click to expand...
I think I read that Twinkies have a half-life of about 375,000 years, and if there was a global nuclear war, only rats, cockroaches, republicans, and Twinkies would survive. Can you confirm?
 
It used to be that good teams took the ball inside and either scored or were fouled. The guards were a reserve force in plays when that failed. If a big man kept passing back out instead of taking on his man to the rim, he was a wimp.

In international play with European referees, Americans noticed that big men were allowed to practically murder each other, while if you touched a guard, it was a foul. David Stern drooled and said, we gotta change NBA rules to increase scoring. It took a few years, but here we are, dependent upon outside shooting. Even enforcer PFs are judged by delicate shooting. Even stiff, brutish Centers must play with finesse. It's crazy.

The best coaching style has not yet been standardized in this new environment. Stotts led the way in his first season here, but quickly all the other teams copied him and have it mastered. His gimmicks no longer work. We need an old-fashioned coach who is a defensive genius, while coping with all the new hot rod shooting. We need Byron Scott. Freed from the yoke of Kobe Bryant, Scott will do wonders here and I can't wait for Olshey to see the light. I am starting a GoFundMe or whatever it's called to hire him.
 
jlprk said:
A few years ago when Hostess announced it would stop making them, I had just bought a box at Costco. Knowing the treasure in my closet, I secretly hid the future antique beneath a musty trap door. The IRS knows nothing of my off-the-books wealth. Only one remains, and it may be the only specimen future generations of archaeologists will get to see in a museum.
Click to expand...

You mean back when KFC was Kentucky Fried Chicken? They did a major re-branding program because they wanted to project a healthier image. Rather than change their menu, they changed their name to expunge that nasty "fried" word from their identity. Evidently, they thought their customers lacked the intelligence to figure out what the acronym meant. Evidently, they were right.

BNM
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
NBA.com's definition of efficiency points is points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks - turnovers - missed FGs - missed FTs.

Here is each team's difference from its opponents so far this season. If you see a correlation to win-loss percentage, tell me.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/opponentstats/17/7/diffeff/1-1
Click to expand...

Been there often.

Not sure there is any correlation between bench Efficiency Differential (Deff) and winning. Remember, a few years back, we won 54 games with one of the least productive benches in NBA history. Our bench sucked, but our starters could hang with anyone.

Conversely, if your starters suck, a great bench won't save your bacon.

What I would recommend is sorting several different stats by position. You will see just how bad we are at every position other than SG and PG.

I know most posters are pleased as punch with Mo's improved shooting, but we get almost nothing else from the SF position. 24th in points, 29th in rebounds, 23rd in assists, 29th in steals, 23rd in Deff.

PF isn't much better (22nd in Deff), but center is where we really get killed. We're 29th in Deff. Combined, that gives us the worst front court in the league. Not only are we dead last in front court Deff, it's not close. We're at -19.9. The second worst team, is at -13.2.

That just reinforces what I said in my original post and what is obvious to everyone: we NEED front court help and we need it bad.

BNM
 
Last edited:
PER isnt perfect, but those names are definitely part of the 'omg he sucks this season (and probably last season excl. ed)' statements
 
Hey, I'll buy into the PER system any day. As long as I don't ever have to hear about WAR again as long as I live.
Mike Trout, the Master of WAR! (loud vomitting sounds)
 
Boob-No-More said:
I'll start with a disclaimer: I am well aware that PER isn't a perfect one-size-fits-all stat. I am aware of it's limitations and weaknesses. That said, if you understand it's limitations, it can be useful. Hollinger's PER formula is an "all-in-one basketball rating, which attempts to boil down all of a player's contributions into one number".

It incorporates all the major stats, uses a weighted formula, adjusts for pace and normalizes for minutes played. The formula yields a PER for the league average player of 15.0. Since the formula includes all of shooting percentages, points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and turnovers, if you do at least one thing above average and don't totally suck at everything else, you should have a PER of at least 10. Hollinger readily admits the formula is largely a measure of a players offensive contributions and "that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen".

So, unless you're an elite lock down defender (Bruce Bowen, Tony Allen, etc.), if you have a single digit PER and are part of your team's regular rotation, your performance is hurting your team.

Last season we only had one player (Noah Vonleh) in our top 10 (in minutes played) with a single digit PER. For the entire 82 game schedule, that was 1174 minutes played, by players in our top 10, with single digit PERs.

Right now, through 15 games, we currently have 1150 minutes played, by players in our top 10, with single digit PERs.

If you have a couple guys in your rotation that aren't pulling their weight, you can survive it. It's no big deal. Most teams, even the good ones, have a couple guys in their top 10 with single digit PERs. No other team in the entire league had 5 guys in their top 10 with single digit PERs. Right now, the bottom half of our rotation is the worst in the entire league and it's not even really close. Forget earning their pay, these guys don't even deserve playing time. Of course the problem is, you have to give those minutes to somebody and ALL the guys who are getting those minutes suck, both collectively and individually.

Here are the culprits:

Evan Turner:
Minutes Played = 363
PER = 9.5

Ed Davis:
Minutes Played = 225
PER = 7.2

Al-Farouq Aminu:
Minutes Played = 209
PER = 8.3

Meyers Leonard:
Minutes Played = 202
PER = 8.6

Noah Vonleh:
Minutes Played = 151
PER = 7.6

No other team in the league has more than 4 players in their top 10 with single digit PERs.

The good news is none of these guys are old enough to be past their primes and none are in the kind of physical decline that would prevent them from regressing to their career norms. In fact, Turner, Davis and Leonard (along with Crabbe) have all increased their PER based on their most recent play. They are already heading in the right direction. While there is no guarantee that all five players will get back to their career average PER by the end of the season, the majority of then should at least be headed in that direction.

Here's how their current PER compares to their career averages and last two seasons:

Evan Turner:
Current PER = 9.5
Career PER = 12.4
2014-15 PER = 12.8
2015-15 PER = 13.6

Ed Davis:
Current PER = 7.2
Career PER = 17.0
2014-15 PER = 20.0
2015-15 PER = 18.7

Al-Farouq Aminu:
Current PER = 8.3
Career PER = 12.4
2014-15 PER = 14.4
2015-15 PER = 12.7

Meyers Leonard:
Current PER = 8.6
Career PER = 12.0
2014-15 PER = 14.8
2015-15 PER = 11.3

Noah Vonleh:
Current PER = 7.6
Career PER = 9.3
2014-15 PER = 13.2
2015-15 PER = 8.6

You can see that all five players aren't only performing below their career averages, they are also currently less productive than they have been in any recent season. It would be highly unusual for all five players, given their relatively young ages, to all fall off this dramatically in the same year.

We don't need, nor should we expect, them all to turn their seasons around, but if we can get two or three of them back close to their recent performance, it will help this team turn their season around. It will also increase their trade value.

BNM
Click to expand...
I tweeted a link to this thread to RipCityMornings as a good explanation for the Blazers' difficulties this season. Dan Sheldon was...not impressed.



 
@cwhappyhusband PER is an effect, not a cause.
Click to expand...
No duh, Sherlock. Sheesh. I think this RipCityDude has comprehension problems.

The argument is that the Blazers have struggled, largely because of our horrible play from the PF position, and the horrible play from our PF position is evidenced by the low PER. Not that PER causes poor play. I mean....Christ ... I can't even....
 
BBert said:
No duh, Sherlock. Sheesh. I think this RipCityDude has comprehension problems.

The argument is that the Blazers have struggled, largely because of our horrible play from the PF position, and the horrible play from our PF position is evidenced by the low PER. Not that PER causes poor play. I mean....Christ ... I can't even....
Click to expand...




PER is imperfect, therefore we shouldn't base a discussion on it.

By extension, since all other stats are also imperfect, we should not base any discussions on them either. Therefore, no statistical analysis based discussions until a perfect stat has been created.
 


Such is the folly of Twitter and the 7 second or less attention span.

It's obvious from his replies, he saw PER in the title and didn't bother to read the post.

I addressed all his criticisms about PER in the first two paragraphs. This is the start of the very first paragraph:

Boob-No-More said:
I'll start with a disclaimer: I am well aware that PER isn't a perfect one-size-fits-all stat. I am aware of it's limitations and weaknesses. That said, if you understand it's limitations, it can be useful.
Click to expand...

I realize that's slightly longer than 140 characters (209 characters, including spaces), but when did it become valid to dismiss something you haven't even bothered to read? Such is the lassitude of the modern "journalist".

Specifically regarding defense:

Boob-No-More said:
Hollinger readily admits the formula is largely a measure of a players offensive contributions and "that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen".

So, unless you're an elite lock down defender (Bruce Bowen, Tony Allen, etc.), if you have a single digit PER and are part of your team's regular rotation, your performance is hurting your team.
Click to expand...

Another 361 characters - 61 words.

I don't expect anyone, and certainly not everyone, to agree with what I write. In fact, I put it out there hoping it will spur intelligent discussion. I'm always open to hearing the opinions of others. That's why I come here.

I also understand that in the high paced, short attention span world of the Twitterverse, for many, anything that is longer than 140 characters is TL:LR. Still, if you're going to take the time to repeatedly shoot something down, you might also consider taking the time to actually read it.

Otherwise, you risk looking like a self-important tool. Perhaps that was the goal. If so, congratulations to Mr. Sheldon. Mission accomplished. Well played, sir!

BNM
 
Here's the 20 game update:

The bad news is we still have 5 guys in our top 10 with single digit PERs. Allen Crabbe has replaced Evan Turner on that list. The good news is, in addition to Evan Turner's greatly improved play, Ed Davis is showing signs of his old self and Meyers Leonard has also had some good games recently.

In order of minutes played (these numbers sum it up nicely for those who consider the rest TL:DR):

Allen Crabbe:
After 15 Games: PER = 10.3
After 20 Games: PER = 9.1
Change = -1.2

Evan Turner:
After 15 Games: PER = 9.5
After 20 Games: PER = 11.8
Change = +2.3

Ed Davis:
After 15 Games: PER = 7.2
After 20 Games: PER = 9.3
Change = +2.1

Meyers Leonard:
After 15 Games: PER = 8.6
After 20 Games: PER = 9.6
Change = +1.0

Al-Farouq Aminu:
After 15 Games: PER = 8.3
After 20 Games: PER = 8.0
Change = -0.3

Noah Vonleh:
After 15 Games: PER = 7.6
After 20 Games: PER = 7.2
Change = -0.4

The most encouraging change, as everyone has observed, is that Evan Turner is starting to fit in and playing like the guy we thought we were getting. He's been rock solid lately. In his last 6 games, he's scored in double digits 5 times and has also had multiple games of 4, or more, assists and/or 4, or more, rebounds. In those 6 games, he's only shot below .500 FG% once and is shooting .524 FG% overall for those six games.

He's recognizing where he can get his shots within the offense without forcing it and is also finding others (as witnessed by 6 assists last night).

He's also turning the ball over a LOT less. That's a trend that started much earlier. After turning the ball over 19 times in the first 8 games (2.4 TOV/G), he's only turned it over a total of 6 times in the last 12 games (0.5 TOV/G). That's quite an impressive turnaround. I'm sure it has come from familiarity with his teammates, Coach Stotts' offense and comfort in his role. If he keeps this up, whoever dubbed him Evan Turnover will have to think up a clever new nickname.

Allen Crabbe, on the other hand, has regressed and replaced Turner among the ranks of those with single digit PERs. Other than last night, he seems to be moving in the opposite direction as Turner. And it's not like he was having a great season (PER = 10.3) prior to Turner's emergence. In the five games since my first post, Crabbe has only scored in double digits and only shot above .400 FG% one time (both last night). His FG% over the last five games has been .313. Not good for a guy who's paid big bucks to shoot the basketball and do little else.

Crabbe's 3-point shot has been wildly inconsistent this season. It seems to come and go on a nearly nightly basis. After 3 games where he was a combined 1-8 from 3-point range, he managed to put together two games with a combined 4-7 on 3-pointers. So far this season, you never know which Allen Crabbe is going to show up. He's had 11 games where he's shot .333, or less from 3-point range, including 7 games where he failed to make a single 3-pointer, but he also has 9 games where he's shot .400, or better, from 3-point range (league average is .352).

As mentioned, other than Turner, the biggest improvement over the last 5 games has been Ed Davis. He's showing glimpses of the old Ed, playing with more energy and rebounding with purpose. It's not just his minutes that are up, it's also his productivity. Since being inserted into the starting line up, he's had two double digit rebounding games, along with 9 rebounds last night. While his TRB% of 15.7 is still below his average of 17.4, and way short of his career best 19.3 from last season, at least it's headed in the right direction.

And, it's not just Ed's rebounding that's returning to form, he's also finishing much better around the basket. After averaging on 2.7 ppg on .389 FG% for his first 15 games, Ed has averaged 7.2 ppg on .640 FG% for the last 5. He's scored more points in the last 5 games than he did in the first 15. This is the Ed Davis I remember!

Meyers Leonard continues to be his inconsistent self, but at least the overall trend is upward. He's had his two best games of the season in the last 6 (14 pts/11 reb against BRK and 15 pts/9 reb against NOP), but has been a non-factor in the other four. Such is the enigma of Meyers Leonard. At least Coach Stotts seems to recognize when Leonard is playing well and when he is not and allocates his minutes accordingly.

Of course that begs the question is Meyers inconsistent because his playing time varies so much from night-to-night, or does his playing time vary because he's inconsistent? Which is the cause, and which is the effect? I think the sample size is big enough that we can point this finger at Meyers.

Some games, he seems mentally focused and engaged on both ends (usually when he's going head-to-head with a big low post center like DeMarcus Cousins, Brook Lopez or Marc Gasol). The rest of the time, he just seems to drift around the court without purpose. I honestly think someone should slap him across the face before every game to wake him up and get his attention. The line for this honor forms on the right, immediately behind @Mediocre Man.

I'll pass on commenting on Aminu and Vonleh. Of course, Aminu hasn't played in the last 5 games and Vonleh has only played 27 minutes of garbage time (mostly in the blowout loss to CLE). So, their impact on the team's success over the last five games spans the range from zero to insignificant.

I'll post updates every 10 games just to see how things are progressing. Based on recent play, I expect Evan Turner to permanently graduate from the single digit PER class of 2o16-17. I expect Ed Davis to be close on his heels. Meyers Leonard is getting close to making it. If he can continues to have 2 good games every 5, he'll make it (that's how low the bar is for PER = 10.0). Aminu should rapidly ascend once he returns. His sample size is very low (only 8 games). So, a few decently productive games should boost his PER into the double digits. Vonleh doesn't really matter at this point. He's fallen out of the rotation and only getting garbage time minutes. He'll only play significant minutes if we suffer multiple injuries.

Crabbe is the big unknown. He gets the most minutes of any of these guys and is really the biggest thing holding our bench back at this point. If he could only be modestly consistent in knocking down wide open 3-pointers, his PER would easily eclipse the magic 10.0 barrier (again that bar is pretty damn low). The problem is last year is the only time in his four year NBA career where he's had a PER greater than his current 9.1. So, is he the PER = 12.2 guy we saw last year, or did we really pay $75 million for this PER = 9.1 guy with an inconsistent outside shot who brings nothing else to the party. God, I hope not.

BNM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

42N8Bounce
Blazers Mid-Season Grades and Awards
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
blue9
blue9
PDXFonz
Salary efficiency in the 2014 NBA Playoffs
Replies
22
Views
2K
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
The Professional Fan
Gavin and CIP were at it again this morning
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
ucatchtrout
ucatchtrout
BlazerCaravan
Exclusive Continuous Growth: The Lillard Legend (Article)
Replies
23
Views
5K
BlazerCaravan
BlazerCaravan
B
For the Record: Blazer stats and info thru 36 games
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Strenuus
Strenuus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top