Red Sox in Trouble

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:


     


    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


     


    [QUOTE]


    miscricket, how in the wide, wide world of sports do you have any possible idea about chemistry in the clubhouse?  None of us knows.  I know you want to write this season off with your unique insights, but I feel compelled to point out that it is April and the Sox are 2.5 games out of first.  As for our two rookies at CF and SS, it might be worth noting that Bradley has the same offensive wins above replacement, .6, as one Jacoby Ellsbury, and of course his defensive wins above replacement, .3, is much better than Ellsbury's -.2.  Bogaerts defense is still a work in progress, but he already has the second best OBP of all SS's in the AL.  His problem to date is lack of power (slugging percentage), but most expect that rise significantly over time.  


     


    /QUOTE]

      Bogaerts has had zero power in his first month of every season he has played.  Portland, Salem, Greenville, GCL.


     


     


     


    The genetics are there, the swing and swing path is there, the fast twitch muscles are there, the strength is there, the hand to eye coordination is there, the plate approach is there.  Boagerts will have power, it might not be 40 HR power, but he is easily going to be a 25 HR guy with a ton of doubles.


     





    I am not really concerned about Xander..and certainly not concerned about his offense. My point was that anyone who is losing sleep over his defensive errors needs to give it a rest. Drew was a better defensive SS..but people were mostly concerned with what he did ( or didn't do in this case) at the plate. Xander is going to be much better offensively..but with that we are going to have to take the errors defensively as he goes through his growing pains..so to speak.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to Joebreidey's comment:


     


    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


     


     


     


    He who relies on Day to Day Clay to carry his weight in the rotation deserves exactly what they get.  Period.


     


     


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


     


    I agree.  I have no idea why fans worry about individual players on a day-to-day basis.


     





    So we should ignore certain performances?  Isn't a season's overall performance an aggregate of each INDIVIDUAL game?  Besides, he's already had 25% of his starts for his annual quota.




    You were ignoring Buchholz for years.


     


    But your past whipping boys JD Drew retired and then Lester became a World Series hero...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    In response to Joebreidey's comment:


     


    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


     


     


     


    He who relies on Day to Day Clay to carry his weight in the rotation deserves exactly what they get.  Period.


     


     


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


     


    I agree.  I have no idea why fans worry about individual players on a day-to-day basis.


     





    So we should ignore certain performances?  Isn't a season's overall performance an aggregate of each INDIVIDUAL game?  Besides, he's already had 25% of his starts for his annual quota.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    You can ignore performances.  They are part of your W/L record.  What you can ignore is day to day variance.


    I guess your point here is that, because Buchholz had a good game today, that we should think he is on a roll, but I think you have to ignore that and see how he does over a month or two.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

     


     


    You can ignore performances.  They are part of your W/L record.  What you can ignore is day to day variance.


     


     


     


    I guess your point here is that, because Buchholz had a good game today, that we should think he is on a roll, but I think you have to ignore that and see how he does over a month or two.


     


    [/QUOTE]

    I would not give him another two months with an ERA of over 6.5. If he cannot contribute consistently over his next five starts or so then I would DL him and give someone else a shot at it.


     


    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE


     


     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    I would not give him another two months with an ERA of over 6.5. If he cannot contribute consistently over his next five starts or so then I would DL him and give someone else a shot at it.

    We shall see. Out of his 5 starts so far now, 3 have been pretty good....before the disaster against Baltimore he had allowed 4 ER in 12 innings his previous two outings.


     


    We should remember that one or two poor starts can really wreak havoc on an ERA when it's this early. And all of our starters, even Lester, have now had at least one game where they looked flat-out awful. More consistency is definitely needed from Buch, but I hardly think he's the lost cause that a lot of people were rushing to declare him after his last start.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to miscricket's comment:


    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:


     


     


     


     


    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


     


     


     



     


    miscricket, how in the wide, wide world of sports do you have any possible idea about chemistry in the clubhouse?  None of us knows.  I know you want to write this season off with your unique insights, but I feel compelled to point out that it is April and the Sox are 2.5 games out of first.  As for our two rookies at CF and SS, it might be worth noting that Bradley has the same offensive wins above replacement, .6, as one Jacoby Ellsbury, and of course his defensive wins above replacement, .3, is much better than Ellsbury's -.2.  Bogaerts defense is still a work in progress, but he already has the second best OBP of all SS's in the AL.  His problem to date is lack of power (slugging percentage), but most expect that rise significantly over time.  


     


     


     


    /QUOTE]

      Bogaerts has had zero power in his first month of every season he has played.  Portland, Salem, Greenville, GCL.


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    The genetics are there, the swing and swing path is there, the fast twitch muscles are there, the strength is there, the hand to eye coordination is there, the plate approach is there.  Boagerts will have power, it might not be 40 HR power, but he is easily going to be a 25 HR guy with a ton of doubles.


     


     


     


     





    I am not really concerned about Xander..and certainly not concerned about his offense. My point was that anyone who is losing sleep over his defensive errors needs to give it a rest. Drew was a better defensive SS..but people were mostly concerned with what he did ( or didn't do in this case) at the plate. Xander is going to be much better offensively..but with that we are going to have to take the errors defensively as he goes through his growing pains..so to speak.


     






    I think Xander will get much better at defense too.  Drew was a bad defender his first 3 years in the league.  Young short stops take time.  Derek Jeter was horrible then he rounded out into a plus defender for a while, of course he's come back down to earth and turned back into a subpar defender again. There are many good fielding short stops who had subpar seasons their first year or two.


    Just like Iggy was rushed to the majors for his glove, Bogy was rushed for his bat...his glove will get better.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    @ Andrew:


     Besides, he's already had 25% of his starts for his annual quota.


    You can repeat this notion that he's a 20-starts-at-most pitcher as much as you like, but that still doesn't make it true.


    Moonslav, for one, has posted his actual numbers for games started by season for you...you just chose to ignore them.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    I would not give him another two months with an ERA of over 6.5. If he cannot contribute consistently over his next five starts or so then I would DL him and give someone else a shot at it.


    Like most things, maybe you see a bright line on the road, and sometimes not.  He's had 5 starts, 3 good and 2 real bad.  His overall K/W is 19/6.  I think that's the key stat.  His BABIP and HR/FB before today were .426 and 19%.  Unless he injured, that is unlikely to last.  57.3 LOB% is usually unsustainable as well.  At this point, I see no reason to think he is doing anything other than building up arm strength.


     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    Really?  anyone can look at his GS over the years. 


    If you look at 2009 through 2013 it's 16,28,14, 29,16 = that is an average of 20.6 starts over that time period.  So I will say it again, he's only good for about 20 starts a year.  Meanwhile, you got people here putting him down for 30.  He's never had 30 even when he wasn't breaking down as much as he has been lately. 


    Day to Day Clay is good for 20 GS.  Anyone who relies on him for more than that gets exactly what they deserve.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    Really?  anyone can look at his GS over the years. 


     


    If you look at 2009 through 2013 it's 16,28,14, 29,16 = that is an average of 20.6 starts over that time period.  So I will say it again, he's only good for about 20 starts a year.  Meanwhile, you got people here putting him down for 30.  He's never had 30 even when he wasn't breaking down as much as he has been lately. 


     


    Day to Day Clay is good for 20 GS.  Anyone who relies on him for more than that gets exactly what they deserve.





    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    Has Buch started 30 games in a season? Has he started close to 30 games in a season?


    Yes & Yes. Facts are facts, and a game started in the minors is a game started instead of being hurt.


          MLB  Minors  Total


    05   --     15       15  (age 20)


    06  --      24       24


    07   3      23       23  (age 22)


    08  15    11        26


    09  16    16        32 (age 24) plus a game in relief


    10  28      1         29


    11  14     --          14 (age 26)


    12  29      1         30


    13  16      2         18  (age 28)


     


    So, since 2009, Buch has had these GS totals:


    32, 30, and 29


    Over half the seasons (3 out of 5) he has had 29+ starts.


    Since '08, his other 3 years have these totals: 26, 18 & 14.


    Average starts:


    From '08-'10: 29 GS'd  (87/3) A three year stretch of being pretty much a wire to wire starter.


    From '08-'12: 26.2 (131/5) A 5 year stretch of averaging about 4-5 missed starts a year.


    Since 2009:  24.3 (121/5)


    Since 2008:  22.5 (135/6)


    To be fair, since 2011: 20.7 (62/3)


    Am I banking on Buch to start 28-32 games this year? No, but his history shows he can and might.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    "Day to Day Clay is good for 20 GS. Anyone who relies on him for more than that gets exactly what they deserve."


    I would take 20 good starts from Clay. I don't mind a guy who misses some starts if he can come back and pitch well. But if he can't get any heat on his fastball and gives up five or six a game, that's different. 


    Clay is not likely to be a long term contributor going forward, but I'll take the World Series ring and the way he has played to date - except for how he has started this season. 


    But he's certainly deserving of more than a derisive nickname. I'm sure Bill will make room for you on the make fun of Clay bandwagon however. 


     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:


    "Day to Day Clay is good for 20 GS. Anyone who relies on him for more than that gets exactly what they deserve."


     


    I would take 20 good starts from Clay. I don't mind a guy who misses some starts if he can come back and pitch well. But if he can't get any heat on his fastball and gives up five or six a game, that's different. 


     


    Clay is not likely to be a long term contributor going forward, but I'll take the World Series ring and the way he has played to date - except for how he has started this season. 


     


    But he's certainly deserving of more than a derisive nickname. I'm sure Bill will make room for you on the make fun of Clay bandwagon however. 


     


     





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Mitch conveniently forgets that, from 2010-2013, Buchholz is #13 in ERA, and 7 of the 12 guys in front of him are NL pitchers.  Probably the best winning percentage in BB as well.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    Mitch conveniently forgets that, from 2010-2013, Buchholz is #13 in ERA, and 7 of the 12 guys in front of him are NL pitchers. Probably the best winning percentage in BB as well.


     


     


     


    And, what's even just 20 starts at the 13th best ERA worth to a team? 


     


    I'd guess, pretty close to what we are paying him.


     


    Fact: there were only 80 starters with 550+ IP between 2010 and 2013. Buch was one of them. Think about that. 80 starters and 30 teams. That's only 2.7 starters per team with 550+ IP, so it's not like Buch is way on the bottom of the list in IP.


     


    Fact: Buch had the 13th best ERA in that stretch while pitching in a hitter's park, a hitter's division, a hitter's league (DH), and still placed 13th out of 80 or top 6%.


     


    Fact: of the 12 guys ahead of Buch in ERA, only Weaver, Verlander, King Felix and Price pitched in the same hitter's league- the AL, so Buch was 5th in the AL, and only 29 AL pitchers had over 550 IP (about 2 per team). 


     


    Fact: looking at ERA- (adjusted ERA), Buch placed 3rd in the AL at 74. Only Weaver (72) and Verlander (71) were better. He was ahead of King Felix, D Price, Cc Sabathia, Max Scherzer and the others.


     


    Fact: Buch went 46-19 in that stretch which is the best winning% in MLB (4th in WPA in the AL). 


     


    Fact: Only 10 pitchers had more wins than Buch: Verlander (72-34), Sabathia (69-34), Scherzer (64-30), Weaver (62-33), Price (61-32), Wilson (61-32), Lester (58-40), Shields (57-46) Felix (52-45), Porcello (47-41). Let's compare Buch to Lester: in the 42 more starts Lester had than Buch. he won 12 more games, but lost 21 more. 


     


    Fact: In that stretch, Buch placed tied with Shileds for 8th in WHIP at 1.22 (best on the Sox).


     


     


     


    Opinion: Of course I'd rather have Buch for 30 starts a year. I'd even rather have an 80% Buch for 30 starts a year, but having the Buch we have for 20-24 starts a year has certainly been a net plus to the team. In his last 4 years, Buch has averaged more than 22 starts, 13 wins, 5 losses, and an ERA of 3.15.


     


    At $7.7M this year, I'll take 22 starts, 13-5  3.15.


     


     


     


    Let's go back to 2009 and include 2014 as well; where does Buch stand for that stretch?


     


    Out of just 28 starters (2 per team) with 650 IP, Buch places 6th in ERA in the AL at 3.43. He places 4th in ERA- at 79, behind only Weaver, Felix, and Verlander.


     


    Yeah, Buch is off to a bad start. yes, Buch has had injury issues in 2 of the last 3 years, but before that, he was not injury prone.


     


    Mitch and others really need to find someone else to pick on.


     


    Sox4ever

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:


    I would not give him another two months with an ERA of over 6.5. If he cannot contribute consistently over his next five starts or so then I would DL him and give someone else a shot at it.


     


    Like most things, maybe you see a bright line on the road, and sometimes not.  He's had 5 starts, 3 good and 2 real bad.  His overall K/W is 19/6.  I think that's the key stat.  His BABIP and HR/FB before today were .426 and 19%.  Unless he injured, that is unlikely to last.  57.3 LOB% is usually unsustainable as well.  At this point, I see no reason to think he is doing anything other than building up arm strength.


     


     




    I see the key stats as his ERA, ERA+, and WHIP, which, respectively to date are 6.00/72/1.708-all of which are horrible. As a good Sox fan, I hope he is just "building up arm strength" and will improve and pitch like he pitched for a long stretch last year. However, if he does not perform, there has to be a time you draw the line in the sand and remove him, at least temporarily, from the rotation. When you are allowing six runs a game and usually burning out your bullpen you do not give your team much of a chance to win games. I say its five more starts; you may say 10 or more, but there must be a time when you have to say ENOUGH. There ARE alternatives that may be better.


    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE


     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    A chance to get to .500 today. I think that is always the starting point for a turn around.


    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    @Moon and Breidey: I am reading what Mitch wrote. He is arguing that CB has not been a particularly durable pitcher: and thats a fact. You two are making the valid point that when he IS healthy, he is very effective, or at least he has been in recent years up until this year. Thats also a fact. Two separate issues entirely.


    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:




    I see the key stats as his ERA, ERA+, and WHIP, which, respectively to date are 6.00/72/1.708-all of which are horrible. As a good Sox fan, I hope he is just "building up arm strength" and will improve and pitch like he pitched for a long stretch last year. However, if he does not perform, there has to be a time you draw the line in the sand and remove him, at least temporarily, from the rotation. When you are allowing six runs a game and usually burning out your bullpen you do not give your team much of a chance to win games. I say its five more starts; you may say 10 or more, but there must be a time when you have to say ENOUGH. There ARE alternatives that may be better.




    A huge overstatement and distortion of how he's pitched. 


    In Buchholz's best three starts: 19 IP, 7 ER, 3.32 ERA.


    In his two bad starts: 6.2 IP, 12 ER, 16.11.


    I'm not excusing his bad starts, which were horrible, but it's obvious that two horrible starts have distorted his overall ERA. In three of his five starts, he has pitched well so he's hardly close to having to be pulled from the rotation.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    1)  He has never had 32 GS in a season so that right there is an error


     


    2)  It's a lot easier to keep your ERA low when you aren't getting as many starts as everyone else

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to royf19's comment:


    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:


     



     



    I see the key stats as his ERA, ERA+, and WHIP, which, respectively to date are 6.00/72/1.708-all of which are horrible. As a good Sox fan, I hope he is just "building up arm strength" and will improve and pitch like he pitched for a long stretch last year. However, if he does not perform, there has to be a time you draw the line in the sand and remove him, at least temporarily, from the rotation. When you are allowing six runs a game and usually burning out your bullpen you do not give your team much of a chance to win games. I say its five more starts; you may say 10 or more, but there must be a time when you have to say ENOUGH. There ARE alternatives that may be better.


     




    A huge overstatement and distortion of how he's pitched. 


     


    In Buchholz's best three starts: 19 IP, 7 ER, 3.32 ERA.


     


    In his two bad starts: 6.2 IP, 12 ER, 16.11.


     


    I'm not excusing his bad starts, which were horrible, but it's obvious that two horrible starts have distorted his overall ERA. In three of his five starts, he has pitched well so he's hardly close to having to be pulled from the rotation.




    First, I was talking about Doubront, not CB. Those numbers belong to Doubront whose lifetime ERA is 4.70. He has never had a good level of ML success, so there is a difference between the two SP. Second, ALL the games count. You can no more discard the poor games as you can the ones where he has been effective. If Buccholz's ERA remains at 6.66 for the next five starts I would still DL him until he gets it together. We simply cannot afford that kind of performance long term.


    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE


     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    Really?  anyone can look at his GS over the years. 


     


    If you look at 2009 through 2013 it's 16,28,14, 29,16 = that is an average of 20.6 starts over that time period.  So I will say it again, he's only good for about 20 starts a year.  Meanwhile, you got people here putting him down for 30.  He's never had 30 even when he wasn't breaking down as much as he has been lately. 


     


    Day to Day Clay is good for 20 GS.  Anyone who relies on him for more than that gets exactly what they deserve.






     


    No.


     


    Most people can.  Some clearly cannot.


     


    During many of those years you cite his lack of durability, he was pitching in the minors because he had not developed into a consistent major league starter and his game needed work.  There were no injuries, and he was not "Day to Day."   So, for example, in 2009, you have 16 starts.  He also started 16 games in Pawtucket that year.  These were not all rehab starts, believe it or not.  But he did start more than 16 games that year, and that won't change no matter how often you chose to ignore it.


     


    This has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions by multiple people, and yet you continually ignore it because it does not fit the gist of your complaint. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:


    1)  He has never had 32 GS in a season so that right there is an error


     


     


     


    2)  It's a lot easier to keep your ERA low when you aren't getting as many starts as everyone else





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    I'd have thought you'd recognize that if you can keep your ERA low through 20 starts, you can keep your ERA elevated through only 5 starts.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:


    Second, ALL the games count. You can no more discard the poor games as you can the ones where he has been effective. If Buccholz's ERA remains at 6.66 for the next five starts I would still DL him until he gets it together. We simply cannot afford that kind of performance long term.



    I never said all games don't count. But be careful of digging your heels in on one stat. It's more important to focus on how the ERA is built, rather than just lazily looking at the final number.


    If Buchholz goes 7 IP 3 ER, 7 IP 3 ER, 6 IP 2 ER, 6 IP 2 ER over his next four games (3.45 ERA for those starts), I doubt there would be any complaints. Then if the next start is 1 IP, 9 ER, his ERA over those five games would be 6.70. But it's hardly indicative of how he pitched in four of the five game.


    Pitchers aren't going to win every start and are going to have a poor outing now and then. And if that bad start is horrible, rather than just bad or poor or etc., it can distort how he pitched in the other games


    Good starters (a No 1, 2 or 3) will have at least 20 good starts out of their 32 starts. And I don't include a 6 IP, 3 ER game, which is considered a quality start. I'm talking about starts of at least six innings with an ERA under 4.00 for the start.


    So far, Buchholz is on a pace for 18 of 30 starts, which puts in in the No. 4- No. 5 starter category right now. He should be better than that of course. I'm not excusing how he's done overall. He's should be pitching better. But if we're going to discuss how he's doing, let it be a complete discussion.


    My example (1 IP 9 ER) is an extreme, but it serves a point. It's more important to see how many good starts and how many poor starts a pitcher has than it is to simply look at the overall ERA.


    I'd rather have a pitcher who pitches great in four of five starts and is a disaster in one start, rather than a pitcher who is mediocre in all five starts.


     


     


     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:


    @Moon and Breidey: I am reading what Mitch wrote. He is arguing that CB has not been a particularly durable pitcher: and thats a fact. You two are making the valid point that when he IS healthy, he is very effective, or at least he has been in recent years up until this year. Thats also a fact. Two separate issues entirely.


     


    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE





    [object HTMLDivElement]


    I have never said Buch has been durable recently. 


    I responded to posts that said he has never started 30 games in a season. I showed he did it twice and had 29 another season. His whole career has not been full of injuries. He had a 4 year stretch with 3 seasons at 32, 29, 14 and 30. That's 3 of 4 years with 29 or more starts ending in 2010. That's not ancient history either.


    I'm not projecting full health for Buch. I'm not sure what will happen. I wouldn't bet on any over-under on GS'd by Buch.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    He has never had 32 GS in a season so that right there is an error.


    You are right; it was 33.


    2009:


    16 GS with Boston


    16 GS with Pawtuchet (plus one game in relief)


    1 playoff game


    33 Total games started


    At least one season he was not "Day-to-day Clay".


    Sox4ever

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Red Sox in Trouble

    As I stated in another thread, the SOX should stand firm on their offer to Lester. If another team wants to give him more years and more money, let them. They'll rule the day they made that mistake. Also, bring someone up ASAP to replace Doubront. If another team wants him(questionable), let them have him. Get whatever you can for him.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share