Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Out of the Park Baseball 19 > OOTP 19 - General Discussions

OOTP 19 - General Discussions Everything about the 2018 version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB.com and the MLBPA.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-17-2018, 02:18 PM   #21
Baseballman2K5
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeg View Post
Can this stat be found in the game? I was searching for it the other night and couldn't find it anywhere.
It's batting stats>batting splits...scroll down... "SCORING POSITION"
Baseballman2K5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 02:24 PM   #22
Galeg
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baseballman2K5 View Post
It's batting stats>batting splits...scroll down... "SCORING POSITION"
Thanks!
Galeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:00 PM   #23
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave View Post
As Yogi Berra put it, "90% of the game is mental, the other half is physical."
madden said that supid crap too..

90% of the game is half mental.. so 45% of the game is mental

ask monkeys to do math and that's what you get.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:08 PM   #24
Baseballman2K5
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 382
so basically a clutch stat would have to represent what's going on in a player's brain...which is impossible.

Sure, a clutch stat may not exist...but you cannot say it simply doesn't exist. Nerves play a role in player's ability. Maybe there is no way to measure it, but it exists.

Watching the Mariners lose to Oakland 2-1 the other night...in the 9th inning thinking to myself..."Would the Ms approach to this bottom of the 9th be any different if this were September and they were 1 GB a wild card spot"

Or even further... "Would the players feel a different sense of pressure, inducing different results"
Baseballman2K5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:09 PM   #25
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Izz View Post
So it's really not about going to 110% but rather dropping to 70-80% due to nerves, etc?

Which would mean clutch is not a guy stepping up in a tough situation but rather a guy who doesn't drop his bundle in a tough situation (retains peak performance, in other words).

Nigh impossible to quantify.
exactly... you can never be more than what you are... through shear will or determination.. simply impossible.. and conclusively proven in so many ways it's ridiculous that it's a quesiton

you can quantify if 1 person has a large enough sample to be confident in what hte results tell you... tough for 1 person.. but league-wide with 100+ years of results, not so difficult for that context. simple understanding of causality and probabilty, really. (real life based on cause and effect, physics, etc and not false perceptions)

e.g. i bet at least one person reading this thinks the ball accelarate as it approaches home plate... just an utter lack of understanding of physics .. or that ahorizontally thrown ball is "slowed" by gravity... only if it is throwin in opposition to it as described by a vector of force. otherwise it merely pulls it toward th ground at 10m/s^2. when thrown perfectly horizontally (not possible for a human) it will have no effect on the velocity.. drag coefficient will.. the ball is coming into contact with O2 and co2 and wahtever else is floating around between source and target. wind blowing at the source would be relative too.. atoms in motion = force that can be measured. more than stagnant air.

like i asked earlier, how are the overperforming? did their muscles magically grow? did their hand-eye contact magicalyl increase? what caused a physical change to allow them to be "better" in that situation? simply impossible. AND, if it was possible, you better learn how to do it by command because you are not doing your best in other situations, lol. you should flip that switch even when it isn't perceived as a tougher sitatiosn... when in reality all moments of a baseball game are equally important.. placing more importance on what happens last is just in your head.

just as any experiment, you can never reach a 100% theoretical yield. you can be as precise as you want, but under normal circumstances 100% is never attainable.

same with displaying your talent.

did you sleep enough?

family problems?

preparing properly?

are you an anxious person under certain circumstances?

if clutch is defined as the absence of allowing arbitrary things bother you, then it most defintiely exists... if you think it's about overperforming, that is objectively false and thoroughly proven through all sorts of methods and logical experimentation that follow the scientific method.

players can underperform for any multitude of psychological reasons as well as physical reasons. you cannot control phyiscal reasons, but you can train yourself not to be weak-willed spineless yellow-belly

amateur golfers are a great example of this... some get around water and they just crack.. their swing changes they have no confidence, they let nonsense affect how they do things. self-inflicted psychological nonsense. there are some holes wher i make the same %@ing mistake each time.. it's my own fault for lacking confidence and peaking too early.

some people simply don't want the ball at the end of games... psychological and not a physical-related problem. it's a phenomenom in nearly all sports.. some don't want to take the last shot in a basketball game.. they feel blamed for the miss, lol. as if the other 47:59mins of the game didn't matter and equally important.

it's all part of the same whole, unless they start awarding 2 runs for every person that crosses home plate in the 9th inning.. then it's tangibly more important, ... LoL

Last edited by NoOne; 04-17-2018 at 03:21 PM.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:15 PM   #26
Baseballman2K5
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 382
I think we are all saying the same thing
Attached Images
Image 
Baseballman2K5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 03:42 PM   #27
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
till it's a bloody pulp!
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 02:12 AM   #28
5-4-3
Minors (Double A)
 
5-4-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
And here we are back in New Myth City, having learned nothing.

Did you guys actually read the study over at BP?

Every rigorous study since Cramer says the same thing: “clutch” doesn’t exist. Sadly some people want to believe that there are baseball players who can consistently hit better when the game is on the line because they have better character than other players and somehow rise to the occasion. Reggie Jackson believed this about himself, FYI, which should tell you something.

But, like Mulder, some people want to believe - despite the fact that every single rigorous study says the same thing: clutch hitting doesn’t exist.
5-4-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 02:13 AM   #29
5-4-3
Minors (Double A)
 
5-4-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
“So why does the media and the fans create false mirage of clutch?

According Rob Neyer, “it’s yet another manifestation of what I will call our 'need for explanation.' "

We humans simply aren't content with thoughtless gods like Dame Fortune and The Great Unknown.

They scare us.

In my opinion, everyone wants to look at the game and make a hero out of a certain player; it makes their favorite player seem special, as if he could overcome pressure that other players can’t.

However, in reality, all players in sports have already overcome immense pressure. After all, it’s no easy task to make the big leagues.

Furthermore, baseball’s general managers have said for a while now they don’t look at a player’s ability to perform in the clutch before signing or trading for players.

If the people who make the teams don’t use this to value players, then how important can it really be?”

Josh Sabo
5-4-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 12:22 PM   #30
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
i think most of us are saying it doesn't exist... i made it clear i don't believe in magic and things that defy reality without any proveable cause and effect

words can mean different things to different people.. they are just symbols without any inherent meaning until we define them... as long as you don't think it means something irrational, the word is just a word and who cares.

it's still a believed myth in the MLB.. just look at big contracts from people that perform well in the playoffs. after 2006 detroit did some really stupid things... was it brett boone? he got a huge payday for ~2 weeks of lucky performances. monkeys still believe this stuff. nothing you can do about it... probably fox news spectators too.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 02:16 PM   #31
Syd Thrift
Hall Of Famer
 
Syd Thrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,825
Again, as the "lone defender" here for whatever reason, what I'm saying does not really disagree with the BP article and frankly all this "hur dur did you read the article????" crap sounds a lot like the sabermetric equivalent of smug atheists standing outside of churches and offering to debate Christians or something (disclaimer: I am an atheist and I'm also smug, just not to the point that I'm gonna pee other peoples' cornflakes). Look. I agree that by the metrics we have available, clutch doesn't seem to be an ability that looks any different from random chance. Hell, the only reason I'm pushing this right now is the smugness assumes that the issue is closed in ways that it's just plain not closed. I'll put this out in numerical format:

1. "Clutch" exists in other sports. Maybe it doesn't exist in the "there are mental differences between players that we can quantify" way but that was never my argument in the first place. My argument is that certain skillsets might make some players do better in certain high-leverage situations, similar to how you can't rely on post players in the NBA to convert opportunities with less than 3 seconds remaining on the shot clock.

2. The BP article straight up doesn't address this because they know and I know that there isn't enough data yet. If/when there is, I expect that the evidence for "clutch" in baseball will read something like "most of the time that you see 95+ mph fastballs is when you're down in the 9th inning by 1-3 runs and as such hitters who can get around on fastballs of that speed will have a 10-20 point wOBA boost". I doubt we'll ever find, like, mental evidence because if there was it probably would have shown itself by now. It also may come out that there is no special ability there. We just don't have enough of *that* kind of data. The number of triples that Ty Cobb hit in 1911 have nothing to do with that. There are new stats that have just entered into baseball within the last few years that will help us shed light on this stuff. And again, the light shed might very well be "nope, still no boost to certain types of hitters in pressure situations" and I'm perfectly willing to accept that.

3. Whether or not "clutch" exists as a skill, there absolutely *have* been clutch performances. Kirk Gibson's walk-off homerun with a broken leg off of Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series immediately pops to mind. Is it replicatable? No. Is it something we should think of as some kind of special skill? Probably not. Was it a clutch at-bat? Hell yes it was a clutch at bat. Let's not allow our pedantry about statistics to get in the way of actual things that happen in actual games.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn
You bastard....
The Great American Baseball Thrift Book - Like reading the Sporting News from back in the day, only with fake players. REAL LIFE DRAMA THOUGH maybe not
Syd Thrift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 04:08 PM   #32
BPS
All Star Reserve
 
BPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift View Post
Again, as the "lone defender" here for whatever reason...
I believe that some players are better in pressure situations than others (and this is different from the level of skill they have). That is, clutch hitters exist (as do clutch pitchers and fielders and basketball players and football players...).

I have not looked extensively at all studies attempting to give insight into the issue. But the studies I have looked fail to convince me that clutch hitters don't exist. Maybe some future study will.

For instance, my very quick scan of the BP study linked to above revealed some problems. Perhaps some of the players claimed to be candidates for clutch hitters were just lucky (and not really clutch hitters). As a result, it would not be surprising if these players had bad luck in other years. Or, maybe they are clutch hitters but in some years randomness overwhelms this characteristic. Or, perhaps clutchiness is not a permanent attribute but just something that some players have some times and not others. (My quick look at the study might have lead me to misunderstand it.)

Now I understand someone might say, "well, clearly you're an idiot who doesn't understand the statistical studies." I might be an idiot (and I think other things might show this) but I do understand the statistical material (when I decide to look at it which I don't always).

The essential problem with any statistical study, and with anyone who fails to find it convincing, is the so-called Duhem-Quine thesis. Virtually every statistical study (using non-experimental data) needs to make many assumptions, some of which might have little support for them and some that are possibly wrong. This colors the weight you give any of the "conclusions" of the study. Insufficient attention to these various auxiliary assumptions is typical of statistical studies done by amateurs and by those not used to data generated by human activities in a non-experimental setting.
BPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 04:13 PM   #33
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
but htose 'clutch' performancs are no different than someone like Brennan Bosch..

looked like a sure fire perenial ASG if you look at 2 half seasons his first 2 years... once luck was rmeoved with a suitable sample, his true colors were obvious...

count me as one of the ones that jumped on his bandwagon too soon.. even after 2 years i still thought he'd be awesome.. then.. nope!

there's value in speculating early and taking that chance, but it's still frought with dangers.

kirk gibson was htting off one leg.. even he will admit it was pure luck, lol. btw, kirk gibson was a childhood baseball hero of mine and totally crushed when detroit didn't resign him... monaghan!! you bas%#rd! cheap loser with terrible pizza! (ugh little caesars falls under tha tcategory too,lol)

if he played his entire career with the same ~ability as he had in that context in that 1 ab.. he'd be terrible. no one can play with a bum leg. 99.9999% of the time Lasorda is going to look like a fool putting him in durign that AB (i don't recall who he replaced.. if they were a really crappy hitter, maybe not so - you'd take a bum leg on a slugger etc since you need a hr and not a single, if that is the context)

it's like going to vegas and betting against the odds.. 1 result is meaningless.

OR - and this is for syd only, if religious stop reading immediately...
.
.
.
might as well start praying and believing in god

Last edited by NoOne; 04-18-2018 at 04:21 PM.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 04:27 PM   #34
BPS
All Star Reserve
 
BPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne View Post
it's like going to vegas and betting against the odds.. 1 result is meaningless.
That's were we disagree: whether a gambling setting involving pure randomness provides a good simile for an activity involving people (with their complex psychologies,physiological responses, etc).

Indeed, even the simile of Vegas breaks down because some people, using techniques like card counting, can shift the odds in their favor (compared to other people). And, so, some people winning more "than they should' is not explained by a run of good luck. But even luck (good or bad) can overwhelm (for a long time) their shifting of the odds in their favor. For a given day, week, or month a card counter can do even worse than the average gambler because of randomness.
BPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 06:28 PM   #35
spartacus007
Minors (Triple A)
 
spartacus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 221
I'm sure we've all played some sort of sport or other competition. At least for me, I've experienced physiological changes when I'm involved in a 'clutch' or 'close-and-late' situation.

In some arenas (like my job) I thrive under this sort of pressure. I experience hyperfocus and a sense of calm. In other arenas I choke. I have an accelerated heartbeat, sweat profusely and fumble at basic tasks.

Surely we've all experienced nerves, at the very least.

It makes sense that 'clutch skill' is extremely difficult to measure statistically and to differentiate it from random distribution in a small sample size. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! The preponderance of evidence and experience tells me it does.
__________________
https://pt25.ootpdevelopments.com/ptsignatures/spartacus007.jpg

Historical Mode:
OOTP 24 (Challenge Mode)
⚾ 1901-19 Reds: 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🏆🏆🏆🏆
FHM 10
🏒 1909-18 Wanderers: 🏆
🏒 1918-19: Arenas/St. Patricks: 🏆🏆
spartacus007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 11:25 AM   #36
5-4-3
Minors (Double A)
 
5-4-3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 143
“Clutch” doesn't exist. Anyone who insists that it does, despite clear, rigorous, and convincing evidence that it does not, has become a flat earther of baseball. Joe “I don’t care what the data says” Morgan says welcome to the club.
5-4-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 12:03 PM   #37
Syd Thrift
Hall Of Famer
 
Syd Thrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5-4-3 View Post
“Clutch” doesn't exist. Anyone who insists that it does, despite clear, rigorous, and convincing evidence that it does not, has become a flat earther of baseball. Joe “I don’t care what the data says” Morgan says welcome to the club.
Joe Morgan, for all of his color commentary garbage, was one of the smartest on-field players in the history of the game.

As for the rest of this, you're clearly uninterested in actually reviewing what others have to say. You've decided to align yourself with the orthodoxy and you're just going to stick with this in spite of any issues with what the evidence can or cannot say at this point in time. Which, you do you I guess.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn
You bastard....
The Great American Baseball Thrift Book - Like reading the Sporting News from back in the day, only with fake players. REAL LIFE DRAMA THOUGH maybe not
Syd Thrift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 12:03 PM   #38
BPS
All Star Reserve
 
BPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5-4-3 View Post
“Clutch” doesn't exist. Anyone who insists that it does, despite clear, rigorous, and convincing evidence that it does not, has become a flat earther of baseball. Joe “I don’t care what the data says” Morgan says welcome to the club.
No "clear, rigorous, and convincing" evidence exists for the absence of clutch hitting. All the studies I've glanced at have serious flaws.

If you want, pick the study you think provides the kill-shot for the idea of clutching hitting and then explain it in your own words, paying particular attention to the statistical techniques used. We can then discuss it. Perhaps you'll convince me.
BPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 12:20 PM   #39
NoOne
Hall Of Famer
 
NoOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPS View Post
That's were we disagree: whether a gambling setting involving pure randomness provides a good simile for an activity involving people (with their complex psychologies,physiological responses, etc).

Indeed, even the simile of Vegas breaks down because some people, using techniques like card counting, can shift the odds in their favor (compared to other people). And, so, some people winning more "than they should' is not explained by a run of good luck. But even luck (good or bad) can overwhelm (for a long time) their shifting of the odds in their favor. For a given day, week, or month a card counter can do even worse than the average gambler because of randomness.
well, no counting cards is udnerstanding odds as they shift over time... still just playing the odds with updated info. the results? again, confusing results with probability.. playing odds doesn't mean you will win.. merely best probability.. . so a gambler who is more likely to win (if that exists) can go on extended losing treaks. (only in games vs humans can it be possible, even craps favors the house, even though it has the 'best' odds for the player - even black/red on roulette isn't 50/50 because not all resutls are black or red on the wheel)

same reasons why the "best" team doesn't always have the best regular season winpct nor do they always win the WS. that doesn't prove anythng about them not being the "best" (best - from an omniscient standpoint. there is a "best" team each year, even if we don't recognize it with info/perceptions that we are limited to. the fact it's an open debate of us is irrelevant to truth)

___________ beware, continued beating of the horse ensues: read at your own pleasure or masochistic tendencies

even though baseball is more complex than many games of chance in vegas, it still comes down to a the same dynamics of flipping a coin and laws of probability.. constant change of probabilities one morment to the next due to a large amount of factors, notwithstanding. merely beyond a human brain to compute all of that instantly and real-time.

how are they better? what is the tangible cause of their overperformance? you cannot grow stronger through will.. you cannot improve your coordination through will.. explain how situational context makes someone "better" than their dna and physical attributes? beyond a pschological reason to make them underperform, it simply isn't possible to be better than you are.

if you can show this, i will willingly admit i am wrong about this.. will neer argue with facts... when i am wrong, i adjust to an improved understanding of reality.

there is a cause for everything.. that is reality whether it's within our understanding or not (speaking to seeming infinite complexities relative to a human's capabilities, not condescending). if you cannot prove the causal relationship it most liekly is not true.

you can appraoch theoretical yield based on ability, but you can never surpass it... same with your talent for anything.. sport or scholastic endeavors too.

if any players shows a statsitical anamoly with a suitable sample size for "clutch" performance it doesn't even necessarily prove anytthing.

they are more likely underperforming in other situations for it to be possible, becuase that makes more sense relative to our knoweldge of biology of a human being - ie muslces don't grow due to pure "will". the player simply allows a perceived less important portion of the game to affect their effort.

every out is equally important. the game rules and how you count runs etc doen't change during the 9innings of the game. physics don't change... your body doens't change during course of game outside of what you can control (excludes injury during game and common sense things like that.. you can only make youself worse through a weak-will or anxiety etc.. those psychological things are in our control too).

you can allow context to affect you in a negative way, but it never makes you better than your potential at any given moment.

there's no causality here. only faith and feelings about "clutch." it can't be proven to exist. while you cannot prove non-existence.. if you can't prove it exists, it's very unlikely to be more than a false perception. you are left with only faith and feelings. people felt strongly about he world being flat.. some feel strongly the world is only 5000 years old.. it simply doesn't matter what we think/feel.

Last edited by NoOne; 04-19-2018 at 12:26 PM.
NoOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 01:02 PM   #40
Syd Thrift
Hall Of Famer
 
Syd Thrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,825
Okay, but this is the thing: what you call "luck" is short for "a lot of processes that we can't quantify or control for". When you roll dice in a game of craps, there are all kinds of factors that cause the dice to tumble: how much spin and force you throw the dice with, the part of the table you throw them against, even a stray wind current. We don't have the kind of fine motor skills to ever really control the first part of that so it's essentially a random process.

The thing is, baseball stats aren't *really* random. We can call them luck because we're not so great at quantifying everything that goes into producing a single or a double or what have you, but pitchers do not randomly choose which pitches to throw, hitters do not randomly choose what to hit, fielders do not randomly choose which balls to dive at and which ones to avoid, etc. There is this whole new layer of analysis that we are just now, as in within the past 3 or 4 years, finding ourselves able to dive into given pitchFX and batted ball statistics.

We straight up do *not* have all of the answers here and it's quite frankly arrogant to think that we do. And it may be that with the tip-of-the-iceberg data we have now, we've already reached the same conclusion we were going to reach regarding "clutch" anyway: that it's not a quantifiable skill (we *really* need to stop saying "clutch doesn't exist" because it's a stupid and anti-experiential thing to say. Of course clutch performances exist. You can say Kirk Gibson was just super lucky until you're blue in the face but that's not going to make it not a clutch performance*. What it isn't is, to the best of our knowledge, a repeatable performance). But this isn't a situation where, necessarily, people are even saying "you can't prove that it doesn't exist!". This is a situation where our ignorance of the game on an analytical basis is becoming more and more apparent, and where we probably need to re-evaluate this, as well as many other baseball maxims, once we've got enough data.

*And for that performance in particular I have my doubts. Isn't it possible that Gibson saw something Dennis Eckersley was doing that led him to lobby Tommy Lasorda to put him out there to pinch-hit, and that thing that he saw led directly to his hitting a homerun? This is "luck" in the sense that it's very hard to, given the current state of our knowledge of the game, impossible to quantify, but that doesn't mean that Kirk Gibson rolled some dice and came up snake eyes necessarily.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn
You bastard....
The Great American Baseball Thrift Book - Like reading the Sporting News from back in the day, only with fake players. REAL LIFE DRAMA THOUGH maybe not
Syd Thrift is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:11 AM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments