Why WAR is a terrible metric for an MVP discussion

Posted: August 15, 2015 in Awards, Batting, Media

Recently there has been some discussion about the use of WAR in determining or at least discussing an MVP candidate for position players (pitchers are eligible too for MVP, obviously, and WAR includes defense and base running, but I am restricting my argument to position players and offensive WAR). Judging from the comments and questions coming my way, many people don’t understand exactly what WAR measures, how it is constructed, and what it can or should be used for.

In a nutshell, offensive WAR takes each of a player’s offensive events in a vacuum, without regard to the timing and context of the event or whether that event actually produced or contributed to any runs or wins, and assigns a run value to it, based on the theoretical run value of that event (linear weights), adds up all the run values, converts them to theoretical “wins” by dividing by some number around 10, and then subtracts the approximate runs/wins that a replacement player would have in that many PA. A replacement player produces around 20 runs less than average for every 650 PA, by definition. This can vary a little by defensive position and by era. And of course a replacement player is defined as the talent/value of a player who can be signed for the league minimum even if he is not protected (a so-called “freely available player”).

For example, let’s say that a player had 20 singles, 5 doubles, 1 triple, 4 HR, 10 non-intentional BB+HP, and 60 outs in 100 PA. The approximate run values for these events are .47, .78, 1.04, 1.40, .31, and -.25. These values are marginal run values and by definition are above or below a league average position player. So, for example, if a player steps up to the plate and gets a single, on the average he will generate .47 more runs than 1 generic PA of a league average player. These run values and the zero run value of a PA for a league average player assume the player bats in a random slot in the lineup, on a league average team, in a league average park, against a league-average opponent, etc.

If you were to add up all those run values for our hypothetical player, you would get +5 runs. That means that theoretically this player would produce 5 more runs than a league-average player on a league average team, etc. A replacement player would generate around 3 fewer runs than a league average player in 100 PA (remember I said that replacement level was around -20 runs per 650 PA), so our hypothetical player is 8 runs above replacement in those 100 PA.

The key here is that these are hypothetical runs. If that player produced those offensive events while in a league average context an infinite number of times he would produce exactly 5 runs more than an average player would produce in 100 PA and his team would win around .5 more games (per 100 PA) than an average player and .8 more games (and 8 runs) than a replacement player.

In reality, for those 100 PA, we have no idea how many runs or wins our player contributed to. On the average, or after an infinite number of 100 PA trials, his results would have produced an extra 5 runs and 1/2 win, but in one 100 PA trial, that exact result is unlikely, just like in 100 flips of a coin, exactly 50 heads and tails is an unlikely though “mean” or “average” event. Perhaps 15 or those 20 singles didn’t result in a single run being produced. Perhaps all 4 of his HR were hit after his team was down by 5 or 10 runs and they were meaningless. On the other hand, maybe 10 of those hits were game winning hits in the 9th inning. Similarly, of those 60 outs, what if 10 times there was a runner on third and 0 or 1 out, and our player struck out every single time? Alternatively, what if he drove in the runner 8 out of 10 times with an out, and half the time that run amounted to the game winning run? WAR would value those 10 outs exactly the same in either case.

You see where I’m going here? Context is ignored in WAR (for a good reason, which I’ll get to in a minute), yet context is everything in an MVP discussion. Let me repeat that: Context is everything in an MVP discussion. An MVP is about the “hero” nature of a player’s seasonal performance. How much did he contribute to his team’s wins and to a lesser extent, what did those wins mean or produce (hence, the “must be on a contending team” argument). Few rational people are going to consider a player MVP-quality if little of his performance contributed to runs and wins no matter how “good” that performance was in a vacuum. No one is going to remember a 4 walk game when a team loses in a 10-1 blowout. 25 HR with most of them occurring in losing games, likely through no fault of the player? Ho-hum. 20 HR, where 10 of them were in the latter stages of a close game and directly led to 8 wins? Now we’re talking possible MVP! .250 wOBA in clutch situations but .350 overall? Choker and bum, hardly an MVP.

I hope you are getting the picture. While there are probably several reasonable ways to define an MVP and reasonable and smart people can legitimately debate about whether it is Trout, Miggy, Kershaw or Goldy, I think that most reasonable people will agree that an MVP has to have had some – no a lot – of articulable performance contributing to actual, real-life runs and wins, otherwise that “empty WAR” is merely a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it.

So what is WAR good for and why was it “invented?” Mostly it was invented as a way to combine all aspects of a player’s performance – offense, defense, base running, etc. – on a common scale. It was also invented to be able to estimate player talent and to project future performance. For that it is nearly perfect. The reason it ignores context is because we know that context is not part of a player’s skill set to any significant degree. Which also means that context-non-neutral performance is not predictive – if we want to project future performance, we need a metric that strips out context – hence WAR.

But, for MVP discussions? It is a terrible metric for the aforementioned reasons. Again, regardless of how you define MVP caliber performance, almost everyone is in agreement that it includes and needs context, precisely that which WAR disdains and ignores. Now, obviously WAR will correlate very highly with non-context-neutral performance. That goes without saying. It would be unlikely that a player who is a legitimate MVP candidate does not have a high WAR. It would be equally unlikely that a player with a high WAR did not specifically contribute to lots of runs and wins and to his team’s success in general. But that doesn’t mean that WAR is a good metric to use for MVP considerations. Batting average correlates well with overall offensive performance and pitcher wins correlate well with good pitching performance, but we would hardly use those two stats to determine who was the better overall batter or pitcher. And to say, for example, that Trout is the proper MVP and not Cabrera because Trout was 1 or 2 WAR better than Miggy, without looking at context, is an absurd and disingenuous argument.

So, is there a good or at least a better metric than WAR for MVP discussions? I don’t know. WPA perhaps. WPA in winning games only? WPA with more weight for winning games? RE27? RE27, again, adjusted for whether the team won or lost or scored a run or not? It is not really important what you use for these discussions by why you use them. It is not so much that WAR is a poor metric for determining an MVP. It is using WAR without understanding what it means and why it is a poor choice for an MVP discussion in and of itself, that is the mistake. As long as you understand what each metric means (including traditional mundane ones like RBI, runs, etc.), how it relates to the player in question and the team’s success, feel free to use whatever you like (hopefully a combination of metrics and statistics) – just make sure you can justify your position in a rational, logical, and accurate fashion.

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Dave says:

    Respectfully disagree. MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. If it was supposed to be he most clutch player it would be MVCP. The way you explain it would mean that if a guy has 30
    HR’s but 28 of them come when the team still loses then it’s less important than a guy who hit 10 HR’s on a team that happened to win all 10 of those games. How can it be most valuable player when all of what you’re saying depends on the team and the guys getting on ahead of him? That’s hardly a good Indicator for a players performance? Average is not a good offensive indicator when a guy can nail 10 hard line drives in a row and they all get caught but another guy is 10/10 on hits with 5 bloops and 5 infield singles. Also MVP has been relegated to offensive stats only. Most valuable player shouldn’t be a liability on defense which is why WAR should be involved. You seem to pick and choose the way you want to use MVP discussion but when you look at the word Most Valuable Player it needs to include everything. Not a coincidence that most MVP’s are top 5 in WAR by years end. It shouldn’t be the only statistic used but it should definitely be used right along average and RBI’s. Don’t even get me started on how senseless a pitchers win/loss record is.

  2. MGL says:

    Of course it should include defense and base running. I was only addressing the offensive component. If a player’s outstanding performance occurs in losing games only, I would like to hear how he created value for his time using whatever definition of value you want.

  3. Peter B says:

    Normally I tend to agree with you, and I hear what you’re saying here, and on top of that I also really don’t give a hoot about awards voting, but I have to quibble with this:

    “If a player’s outstanding performance occurs in losing games only, I would like to hear how he created value for his time using whatever definition of value you want.”

    Correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth, but this sounds like the typical argument for why the MVP has to come from a team that made the playoffs – i.e. if the team missed the postseason WITH player X, then removing player X from the team would have made no difference.

    I have a few problems with this logic:
    1. It suggests that there is no value in trying hard in a losing effort. The Phillies had no legitimate shot at the postseason this year. Should they not try to win ballgames anyway? If you say that they shouldn’t, then why bother having a fairly large league at all? Just put together two teams of the best players and have them face each other 162 times. If you say they SHOULD try, then doesn’t that suggest there is some value in not simply giving up and forfeiting? Even if that value is just in maintaining a competitive environment for the teams that ARE in contention?
    2. If you accept that there IS value in trying hard at all times, then this approach of only caring about wins removes too much context from the MVP equation. If Mike Trout plays for a team that is saddled with the worst pitching staff in the league plus 8 below average defenders around him, should he really be penalized for having had the bad fortune to be drafted by that team? Are we supposed to pretend that the best player in baseball isn’t the best player in baseball simply because his team sucks?
    3. Where do you draw the line? If Mike Trout plays for a 50 win team, but all his home runs are game-winners did he add value because of that, or did he not add value because the wins are irrelevant given how crappy the team is? What about an 80 win team? What about a 90 win team that missed the playoffs but was competitive to the end?

    • MGL says:

      OK, I’ll correct you. 😉 Value can be helping to create runs or wins for your team OR it can be helping to catapult your team into the playoffs, which necessarily requires contributing to runs/wins. I certainly did not and am not limiting it to one or the other. Please don’t assume that I am. I have no problem with people who think that only contending teams can have an MVP. I also have no problem with people who consider giving it to anyone who helps their team win games, regardless of whether they make it into the playoffs. It is all a matter of how you interpret the word value and the suggestions for voting that MLB gives the voters.

      Obviously trying “hard” is a virtue, but to suggest that a player created “value” by trying hard but coming up short, is a bit of a stretch. It’s great to pat the player on the back and say, “Nice effort – too bad it was all for naught,” but to give someone an award for that? Nah…

  4. Tom says:

    Do you think anyone takes “context” into account when voting for MVP today? The dinosaurs who vote for these awards and ignore better stats are still using the old “best player on thenest team” thing, using batting average, homers and RBI…regardless of when those events happened, “clutch” or not.

    And tell me, player A hits a liner with the bases loaded and knocks in two. Next inning, same situation, player B hits the same liner one foot to the left and the leftfielder makes a sliding catch. Who is more valuable, more clutch, etc.?

    • MGL says:

      RBI and HR necessarily create run value, and RBI, by definition IS taking context into account. BA is worse than WAR, of course, since not only is context NOT accounted for, but it is a terrible way of accounting for offensive performance, relatively speaking, as if all hits are created equal and walks don’t count.

      In any case, I’m not addressing how the voters determine their votes. I’m addressing one thing and one thing only – the fact that many saberists and saber-oriented fans (and even SOME voters) use WAR as the holy grail for MVP, such as when they argued that Trout clearly was the better candidate than Miggy in 2013. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t, but using WAR to distinguish is a terrible idea.

    • MGL says:

      For the record under the dictionary definition of “value” or any reasonable definition, effort is valuable because it is likely to create value IN THE FUTURE. Effort that goes unrewarded creates NO value in the past. You may want to congratulate someone on that unrequited effort, but to give them a “most valuable award” as opposed to “most effort award” is silly. I don’t think that is what baseball has in mind wrt that award.

  5. MGL says:

    “And tell me, player A hits a liner with the bases loaded and knocks in two. Next inning, same situation, player B hits the same liner one foot to the left and the leftfielder makes a sliding catch. Who is more valuable, more clutch, etc.?”

    Who WAS more valuable? You tell me. The answer is obvious. Not everything in baseball analysis is rocket science. Now whether Player A or Player B has more talent and which one will be more valuable in the future, or even how much responsibility each player had wrt that event, is another story altogether. It is crystal clear that value (2 runs) was created in scenario one and no value (an out) was created in scenario 2. To argue anything else would be beyond sublime. Again, how much responsibility you want to give the various agents is up to you. But, you have to decide credit based on the outcome IF you are measuring value. Until they take the word “valuable” out of the MVP award and call it the “best player award” you must (MUST) start with the premise that the player has to have created real, tangible, value, despite the fact that value can be defined and interpretred in any number of reasonable ways. Calling an out “valuable” because the player hit a line drive and the left fielder caught it is not reasonable. And giving someone credit for part or all of that value does not mean that that player is necessarily “deserving” of it. Similarly, the player who hits the line drive that got caught, probably did just as well as the player who hit the same line drive that scored two runs. It may not be fair that one players gets credit for creating value and the other one does not, but many things in life are not fair. This is one of them.

  6. hoo says:

    strictly speaking, the ‘WAR’ you are mentioning is to be called ‘WAR opend to the public (fWAR or rWAR)’ not to be called just a “WAR.” someone else may do include context in own WAR system.

  7. Tom says:

    The liners are of equal value. Over 162 games this will balance out, the luck aspect. i’d go with the higher WAR rather than the most RBI, which in itself is a function of the number of men who find on base when you bat.

  8. Tangotiger says:

    The person has to define value. (a) One can say it’s performance in games that the team won. Or, in corporate america, it’s who was part of the team that landed the big account. (b) One can say it’s performance that contributed TOWARD winning. Or in corporate america, it’s all those guys that did a great job, but their performance was unaffected by the last guy who couldn’t close the deal. (c) One can say it’s performance in a vaccum, that given the right circumstances, wins would have followed that performance. Or in corporate america, it’s who does a good job, period, and we’re not going to figure out how the company made 1 billion$ and how to trace it back to the 10,000 employees, as we just assume that whoever did a good job, did their share, however indirectly.

    Choose your definition.

    • MGL says:

      Again, I think it is reasonable to reward effort that goes for naught, like great offensive performance over the course of the season that leads to few wins and runs (which is unlikely, of course, but possible), however, I don’t think it is reasonable to think that anyone rational has that kind of “value” in mind when it comes to the MVP award.

      More importantly, if you were to use WAR to narrow down your choices, surely you would want to use some context to further refine those choices. The notion that player X deserves the MVP over player Y because he has 1 or 2 more WAR (which is a lot) is laughable in my opinion.

  9. Cody Stumpo says:

    Voters definitely weight September performance higher in pennant races. It’s not just win probability added but sort of championship probability added.

    • MGL says:

      All of things is what I am arguing are far more important than a context-neutral win/run/playoff agnostic stat like WAR.

      • Cody Stumpo says:

        I’m not arguing against you; just helping you find the point you almost made. Probability of winning WS is recomputable after each day.

        Sum_games(WPA_player_game * delta P(WS.Win_team_game))

        is what you almost said and what sort of lines up with how voters already think.

  10. Michael Goetze says:

    So are you also going to remove all games a team plays after having clinched the division from consideration because no additional value could possibly be generated in those? What about when the team is 1 win away from clinching the division – if the MVP candidate hadn’t contributed to winning that game, perhaps it doesn’t matter because they won the game after that in a blowout anyway? Does it matter how good the bench player is who would theoretically replace the MVP candidate?

    Hey, perhaps the stat you’re looking for is not WPA, but DSPA (Divisional Series Probability Added).

    Personally I think this line of thinking is silly, there should be a Best Player award, regardless of “clutch” factors. “Most Valuable Player” is a stupid name anyway because a truly valuable player is one who not only plays well but also has a low salary.

    • MGL says:

      I write like 300 times that value can be runs, wins, etc., and then you somehow post that I said that “value” is only with respect to the playoffs. I remain mystified.

  11. Tangotiger says:

    I agree that the name of the award itself is limiting. If we had called it “Most Outstanding Player”, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    Indeed,the Cy Young Award itself, on the statue, at one point said “Most Outstanding Pitcher”.

    But, voters want to make it more complicated, talk about pennant races, and “still be 1st place without him” and other nonsense to make the voter sound more self-important.

    In 10 years, we don’t want to know that adding Shannon Stewart in the middle of the season coincided (as in coincidence) with a playoff run so he can be justified in finishing in the top 5 in MVP. We don’t want to be embarrassed by Lamar Hoyt and other selections made in the eye of the tornado.

    It’s ALREADY hard enough to figure out who was the most outstanding player. We don’t need to make it more complicated by nebulous concepts of timing of performance.

    So, I basically agree with MGL’s point. I just disagree with the way people rally around the word “value”, when we should rally around the word “outstanding”, even if it’s not in the name.

  12. RMR says:

    So a player’s MVP case is significantly a function of the performance of his teammates? To what degree do we consider context? If we ignore contributions that occurred in team losses, shouldn’t we by extension ignore the outcome of PA that came in innings in which runs were not scored? If we go down the path of using WPA or, better yet, P(layoff)PA, we find ourselves in a very awkward spot. A player who hits a walk-off, come-from-behind homer in the bottom of the 9th on the last day of the season to propel his team into to the playoff should basically just be given the MVP trophy then and there. I doubt any of us would have put Josh Willingham on a 2012 AL MVP ballot; WPA would place him 2nd. We could, of course, come up with many such awkward edge cases. That leaves us having to discount context to some extent; but to what extent and by why method?

    As you point out, players cannot control the context they find themselves in nor affect their own performance in consideration of it “to any significant degree”. So the question is, do we want the MVP to reward the player for his performance, or do we want reward a player for both his performance, his teammates performances, and his good “luck”? I don’t think it’s irrational to prefer the former at all We have team awards; they’re called wins, and playoff appearances, and championships. The MVP is precisely about isolating the player from that context.

    Regarding, WPA and similar metrics, I’m still not convinced by their basic logic in the context of player contributions and value. A homer in the 1st inning of a game that ends 1-0 was precisely as valuable as a 9th inning homer in a game that ends 1-0. That we were not able to accurately measure each event’s contribution at the time it occurred is not consequential from the historical accounting perspective. Our incomplete knowledge in the moment does not actually result in the 1st inning HR affecting the outcome of the game less than the 9th inning one. I certainly get it in the context of a proxy of a game’s excitement at a given point in time, which is precisely a function of our knowledge about the likely outcome. But value is about the actual importance of the contribution to the outcome, not our experience of it.

    The #1 guideline for MVP is “actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense;” If we soften that to become substantially more about heroics, timing, teammate performance, or about the fan’s experience of the contribution rather than the contribution itself, we go down a subjective, relativistic rabbit hole.

    So no, it’s not irrational to use WAR as the basis for an MVP vote. Sure, if the guys are in a virtual dead heat in terms of WAR, even using generous error bars, and one has the heroic narrative, I’m totally on board with using it as a tie-breaker. But we already have ways to reward the collective contributions of players in context; the outcomes of the games themselves. When I’m awarding a player, it’s all about their specific efforts regardless of context and WAR is the tool which allows me to best isolate their contributions.

    • MGL says:

      “If we ignore contributions that occurred in team losses, shouldn’t we by extension ignore the outcome of PA that came in innings in which runs were not scored?”

      You could definitely make a case for that.

      “A player who hits a walk-off, come-from-behind homer in the bottom of the 9th on the last day of the season to propel his team into to the playoff should basically just be given the MVP trophy then and there.”

      That’s silly. It is merely one piece of a large puzzle.

      “So the question is, do we want the MVP to reward the player for his performance, or do we want reward a player for both his performance, his teammates performances, and his good “luck”?”

      Yes, exactly. His teammates performance only give him an opportunity to create value. A great CEO cannot make lots of money for his company shareholders without lots of other people doing their jobs well. That does mean that the CEO does not deserve praise when the company does well.

      “I don’t think it’s irrational to prefer the former at all.”

      It is not irrational – for a different award. This is NOT the “best player award.” How many times do I have to say that? If you want to interpret it as such, I can’t stop you. It is just that it was not intended as such and is not considered as such by 95% of the people who care about the award. You cannot take a minority stance and expect the majority to stand with you.

      “Regarding, WPA and similar metrics, I’m still not convinced by their basic logic in the context of player contributions and value. A homer in the 1st inning of a game that ends 1-0 was precisely as valuable as a 9th inning homer in a game that ends 1-0….'”

      Correct. You may not have read it, but I said several times that WPA is better than WAR but by no means does it capture “value” as value is typically meant with respect to this award.

      “The #1 guideline for MVP is “actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense;” If we soften that to become substantially more about heroics, timing, teammate performance, or about the fan’s experience of the contribution rather than the contribution itself, we go down a subjective, relativistic rabbit hole.”

      It is by definition and in practice a muddy water, subjective award. As long as the criteria for awarding are reasonable based on a reasonable definition of “a valuable player,” there are many ways to skin the cat. No one is suggesting that it is about heroics, although that can be included in the myriad criteria, no one is suggesting that it is about a,b,c,d,e, or f, but those too can be included, again, as long as they are reasonably related to creating value to a team. The ONLY thesis I presented was that a context-neutral stat like WAR, which completely disregards context bu definition, is NOT a reasonable way of capturing value since is specifically and deliberately ignores actual, tangible value.

      “So no, it’s not irrational to use WAR as the basis for an MVP vote.”

      Yes it is, which is my entire point and I think I have more than provided evidence and logic to support that assertion. Because a deserved MVP is also likely to have a very high WAR, perhaps the highest WAR in the league, and because most players with high WAR will have also created lots of value, does not mean that WAR is a good metric for determining an MVP. That is a critical point which must be understood in order to even begin to understand my arguments.

  13. hughhansen says:

    Do you also think that WAR is a terrible tool to use in assessing the Cy Young award?

    • MGL says:

      No. CYA is a completely different animal. It is generally considered to be the “best pitcher award.” Now, being a slave to WAR for the CYA or any other award, is a mistake I think, but WAR is MUCH more suited to CYA than to MVP.

      • Eric R says:

        In the last 10 years, the league leader in fWAR, among pitchers, won the CYA 65% of the time. The CYA winner was 0.38 fWAR behind the fWAR league leader on average.

        For the MVP [ignoring pitcher wins and calling the #1 position player the winner], I get 50% of the winners also leading the league in fWAR, with the average gap between the fWARleader and winner at 0.97 fWAR.

        Note: the gaps are the average gaps overall, not just the cases where the fWAR leader didn’t win; that would be 1.1 fWAR and 1.9 respectively

  14. Williamtrer says:

    Продам сапр Grafis 11 (работает идеально)
    Продам OptiTex 12- полная русская версия

    Для приобретения просьба обращаться на емайл:
    vip.grafis@mail.ru

    • Eric R says:

      So whether the player is a good defensive player or a bad one is irrelevant? Whether they are a SS/C of a DH/1B is irrelevant? Whether they are good base runners or not is irrelevant? Etc?

      Got it.

  15. Linus says:

    Why didn’t anybody tell me MGL had started writing for the Onion?

  16. Tom says:

    To title this post “Why WAR is a terrible metric for an MVP discussion”, write a bunch of things that are entirely disputable (“context is everything in an MVP discussion”, “doesn’t mean that WAR is a good metric to use for MVP considerations”) as if they are facts and finish up with a conclusion that includes the line “It is not so much that WAR is a poor metric for determining an MVP…” is, to borrow a phrase, an “absurd and disingenuous argument.”

    Seems to me like the article could be summarised as “don’t use a single stat to determine MVP” except I don’t think MGL says that anywhere. That is an argument that I think is hard to reasonably disagree with. Instead it tries to pretend WAR is terrible for determining MVP even when it’s completely reasonable to think it’s the best single stat for determining MVP because all the others have just as many or more problems.

  17. […] Why WAR is a terrible metric for an MVP discussion […]

  18. […] mean that Donaldson deserves the MVP or has passed Mike Trout — baseball analytics expert Mitchel Lichtman notes that WAR isn’t specifically geared for answering MVP questions and so isn’t particularly […]

  19. Jeromesoli says:

    Know your keywords. Sometimes, typing in “Gucci bag” in make certain they are field probably won’t yield all cheap gucci. Activity . buy used clothing from online stores, type in other search phrases that may yield more results. For example, “Gucci clutch” and “Gucci handbag” may increase search results which otherwise would didn’t come -up.
    Moncler jackets sale uk Without doubt the Gucci now has the ability to be the best brand across the western world. The Gucci handbag is usually admitted just about every one of the bag is made in exquisite manual, can make has an exclusive selling price. The businessmen and pop stars now are attached to So now do not wait anymore to choose the Gucci up wards.Gucci is a well-known brand in the fashion industry. It includes great variety of products and some with the most common items include Gucci shoes,watches, caps and credit cards. But one item that a majority of people are talking about is Gucci Accessories. You will find amount of bags, coming from which most consultants are meant for women, but purchase also find a large variety of men bags in industry. One such example is the number of waist bags males. These bags truly represent style also as offer comfort to the ones carrying it.

  20. peterscah says:

    Thanks for magnificent information I was looking for this information for my

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s