Blasphemy?
by themanleyman on Feb 9, 2010 2:40 PM PST
Email
PrintSo, I have to admit that I am a newcomer to defensive metrics, so I don't have the full experience to appropriately comment on this article. However, I had to point out that ESPN has some guy named Nyjer Morgan being vastly better in center field than our man Gut.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove09/insider/columns/story?id=4898304
Its Insider only so I'll try to sum up what it says.
Basically it says that since morgan had significantly less innings than gut we can take his UZR and multiply it out to UZR/150, and show that he had a UZR/150 of 40.5 to gut's 27.1 thus making morgan the apocalypse to flying things. Is this okay? Is there a small sample size problem? Do we have to destroy this writer for blasphemy against one of the deities here at LL?
Essentially I want wiser souls to tell me if my world view should be crumbling, because if Guti had one of the best defensive center fielding seasons of all time, what does this mean for the other guy? Also would it then make sense for the Nats to stick him in right center and have him cover both right and center and then make Adam Dunn into the first NL DH?
Well that was my first post, I sincerely hope I did not break any faux pas here at LL.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I will say that this is infinitely better than a lot of first posts!
I don’t know enough to really talk as an expert on the subject, but I would say there is a small sample size here.
But yeah, I am going to defer to others that are smarter than I.
Well, Morgan had less than 500 innings in CF last year which is less than 1/3 of the season.
Since it is generally considered foolish to lean on anything less than a three year window of information when looking at UZR I would say that it is to small of a sample size.
However, maybe Morgan is that good and he proves it over time. The thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Gootch does not really have a ton of innings in CF either. Yes his 2009 was amazing, but I’m not sure you can call him the best without argument either.
Nice first post!
The only thing is, that link is to an ESPN Insider article – maybe if you’re an Insider subscriber consider in the future pulling out a few quotes (but please do not cut and paste the whole article) to illustrate their assertion. You refer to the numbers in one of your paragraphs, so that’s probably good enough for this one, just for future reference remember that Insider is behind a paywall and it’s not likely that a ton of people have access to it.
But to your point, yeah, it’s a bit of a small sample size – it’ll be worth watching over the next season or two to see how well both Morgan and Guti maintain their consistent awesomeness.
One season of UZR is always a small sample size
Neither Guti nor Morgan are likely to repeat their insane UZR’s. Of course, that article only looks at CF UZR, where Morgan only logged 456 innings. I think it’s hard to call Morgan’s 2009 better than Guti’s, but it’s clear at this point that they are comparable (and amazing) center fielders.
That being said, Gutierrez has a much higher offensive upside, and is much sexier, so I’m fine if one guy beats his UZR.
Good first post.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
I would say that once again, ESPN is being stupid.
There just isn’t a big enough sample size to make that claim first of all. The general rule of thumb for defensive metrics like UZR is that you want three seasons of playing time to make a judgment about someones true talent level, so there are some big problems with making a claim based on less than half a season.
It’s clear that he’s good, but he’s not +40 in CF good (no one is). What’s more is that if you look at his UZR numbers by component, you see that he had +7.1 from his arm last year, which is a substantial outlier I would say. They are both clearly really good, but it’s tough to make the claim based on <800 career innings in CF, that Morgan is hands down a better defender.
No, it's not.
ESPN didn’t write the piece, they ran the piece. The author is R.J. Anderson, our good friend from DRB and FanGraphs.
And, to pull out meaningful quotes:
A half-season’s worth of data is not enough to definitively judge a player, but Morgan’s career numbers tell a similar story. For his career, Morgan’s UZR/150 in center is 39 runs better than average.
Now, Morgan doesn’t have much of a career sample in CF either (just 96 defensive games), but neither does Franklin. Though Guti does have about twice as much time in CF, it’s still not a lot. However, I talked before about using Guti’s RF numbers in conjuction to give us a better estimate of his OF ability at CF going forward and concluded that +15 isn’t unreasonable.
Morgan has been the better fielder, by a smidgen on a rate basis, but he’s maintained that rate over about half the sample. Is he better than Guti? Probably not, and since he’s older, he probably won’t be in the future. But he might be and he’s in the discussion. And really, it’s a 1,000-word piece written to the standard ESPN audience. There isn’t a lot of room for subtle arguments.
Ctd. w/numbers
On a per 150 defensive games basis, scaled to CF
Gutierrez: +19.3 over 2.62 150-game seasons
Morgan: +20.0 over 1.22 150-game seasons
I'm not much of a regresser,
but given the size of the samples and the fact that nearly all major leaguers fall into the -10 to +10 range, wouldn’t you then project Morgan as something like a +13 defender and Guti as a +18 defender? I’m going off the notion that the magnitude of the regression is inversely proportional to the size of the sample but that in these players’ case regressing to +10 is reasonable.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 9, 2010 8:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I couldn't read the article cause I'm not an insider.
I was just responding to the title, the deck and the page header in conjunction with the short version presented above (coupled with the fact that I hate ESPN in general for their “analysts” like Joe Morgan and Steve Phillips). But I still think it is a stretch to be making a definitive claim that Morgan is the best center fielder in baseball based on the sample-size we have. There aren’t a lot of horses in the race, but it’s a photo finish and I don’t think anyone can call it based on such small samples.
Welcome to the world of having editors.
Complex, carefully structured assertions do not work in headlines. Editors want you to read the piece and will favor bolder, more aggressive titles.
Which really kind of brings me back to ESPN being stupid. Unless the editors work for someone else in which case it's their fault.
I have the same problem with newspaper heads and decks too.
It's not ESPN. It's the nature of what a headline is.
Headlines are inherently missing a lot of information, because it’s only a few words. You always have to leave something out, simplify concepts, leave out qualifiers, etc. Trust me, it’s not easy.
No headline writer intends to misrepresent what’s in a story, but at the same time, you have to write something that will catch an eye. A headline can’t be a 35-word summary paragraph.
But missing a lot of information doesn't have to mean it's misleading necessarily
And I would say that headline is pretty misleading because it suggests a conclusion that is not really accurate due to the difference in sample size and the weighting you should place on each player’s UZR/150 respectively. The whole point of the article is to suggest Morgan was better than Gutierrez and there’s really not much basis to arrive at that conclusion, let alone headline your article in that way.
I was speaking more generally.
I It’s hard for me to make much of a point without being able to read R.J.‘s full piece, but he appears to be saying “Morgan has been better on a rate basis according to UZR.” He acknowledges the sample size issues, but it’s hard to do that in a headline without resorting to vague, questioning headlines like “Who’s the best oufielder in baseball?” That might have been a better option in this case, but copy editors are loath to write question headlines for various reason — one being that they’re highly overused and tend to ask questions that don’t get answered in the story anyway.
So you summarize it in the small space you have: Morgan rules the outfield. The numbers aren’t conclusive, but they are at least “evidence,” as the readout before the Insider jump says, and that seems like all R.J. was really going for. I agree that, based on what I can tell R.J. wrote, the headline makes a stronger argument than the story. But that’s really, really hard to avoid in instances like this where the conclusion isn’t very clear-cut. “Nyjer Morgan is really good but perhaps not quite as good as Franklin Gutierrez but we can’t really know for sure because of a small sample size” is not going to work as a headline.
This isn’t me flexing my authority on the subject or anything, but I just want to mention that I’ve been editing and writing headlines every day for the past decade, and I still seldom feel completely satisfied with a headline I write. I’m a bit defensive.
Morgan is really, really good too
However, Franklin had 153 games in CF while Morgan only had 56. Even Franklin’s 153 games is not enough of a sample for UZR to draw a firm conclusion from, meaning 56 tells you that much less.
Yeah, it's small sample size.
Morgan may be a terrific defender, but it’s poor analysis to multiply his innings out in order to approximate his UZR/150. You wouldn’t take a player’s April totals and multiply them by six to project out his entire season would you?
Additionally, as has been stated, you typically need at least three seasons to gauge a player’s true defensive value with UZR. One season is not enough. Looking at 1/3 of a player’s season with UZR is silly and basically a waste of time.
This is a suprisingly bad article by RJ from a sabermetric point of view
There is no problem with arguing that Morgan is a better defender than Guttierez; however, to use 781 innings of UZR to back that up is just awful. In that small of a sample, you should be regressing at least 75% to league average.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 9, 2010 5:57 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
The answer is we don't know who is better
There is no way we can know using these numbers. I even go as far to say using the numbers available it is impossible to tell who is better.
With regards to sample size issues:
In defence of RJ Anderson [since he seems to have stopped posting here]: he explained over at DRaysBay that he had included a paragraph over sample size issues, but this was not published in the online article. Also, he had a mandate from the editors to give a pro-Morgan slant to the article.
by EnglishMariner on Feb 10, 2010 12:16 PM PST reply actions
Because 1,000 words on Nyger Morgan perhaps being better than Gutierrez, but probably not
is not compelling reading nor will it spark any debate, as this article has actually done.
I just think it's a bad precedent to set for Sabernoobs reading ESPN that you should use UZR in a small sample size.
That wasn’t a very lovely sentence above, but you get the point.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 10, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
The sabermetric community
will eventually have to either learn how mainstream articles work, or decide that everyone who writes for one is an idiot.
It’s a fact of life that editors at big news organizations (such as ESPN or the Wall Street Journal) will assign topics to writers and say “write about this”. They will do so for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with getting people to read the article.
The writer has two choices. He can tell that editor to go stick it if he doesn’t like the assigned piece or he can do the very best he can given the constraints he’s working under. If you want mainstream analysis to get better, then you want more of the latter, not the former.
Is Nyjer Morgan the best defensive outfielder in baseball? Maybe. Probably not, but it’s not an outlandish claim. He’s certainly in the discussion, and no one questions that he’s one of the best. Well, guess what, now a bunch of people who would never read FanGraphs are aware of how good Morgan is defensively.
That is a good thing.
RJ did a good job with this piece. Writing for a mainstream site like ESPN or WSJ is like pitching in Coors. Change the expectations of what a good performance is. It’s not the same thing as writing for an audience of people who understand how this stuff works. The rules are different, the formats are different, and what you can write is different.
If you have a problem with this post, take it up with me. RJ did a good job with what I told him to do.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 7:28 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
But when you're asked to compromise your beliefs, your premise, everything that makes you superior to these mainstream folks
Should we be made to agree with that? For the sake of greater exposure, should you do it? I don’t think so. We adore you guys for a reason, and that reason is you are uncompromising in your honest assessment of the facts.
Yeah that came out a lot more melodramatic than I intended
Curse you, alcohol.
We didn't compromise anything
RJ wrote a post that said “Nyjer Morgan is a great defensive center fielder.” That’s true. And it’s not something that the average ESPN reader probably knows. They’re now better educated because of the piece.
Mainstream pieces won’t be technically perfect. Your option is to have no quality sabermetric analysis in the mainstream or see the flaws for what they are and be okay with them.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
That's fair
My concern was primarily that editing out the warning about sample sizes is encouraging people who don’t know any better to go to Fangraphs and look at everyone’s UZR/150 and make conclusions about players that aren’t really justified. I guess just the exposure for UZR and getting them to go to Fangraphs is a victory, and maybe those misconceptions can be cleared up over time if they stick around and read the articles. Being that it takes an awful lot of further explanation to get people to see the real picture I guess I can understand why you can’t iron out these wrinkles in a mainstream article.
The sabermetric community does understand how mainstream articles work, thank you.
First, no one thinks that RJ (Or Matthew, or you) is an idiot. That should really go without saying. In RJ’s case, everyone at Lookout Landing loves DRB and we all appreciate his work.
Second, we understand that he was writing for a mainstream news organization, and that has certain implications. Most of us are not journalism majors, but we’re not dunces either. One single person in this thread wrote something that was thoughtfully critical of ESPN. Matthew then wrote a thoughtful reply to Vatinius’s post, and they then had a worthwhile discussion. The only other person to complain about ESPN was OlSalty, who wrote one line: “fuck you, ESPN”. I doubt he meant it as serious analysis.
It seems safe to say that TheManleyMan (I feel silly writing that name) posted his question because he wanted a sabermetric take on RJ’s article. That’s why he posed his question here, and not to Geoff Baker or Brock & Salk. Most people who commented on this thread offered a sabermetric take. The consensus was that Morgan may be a terrific defender, but it is not prudent to project one’s UZR using data from only a fraction of a season. That is reasonable.
Like RJ, everyone here respect you, Dave. I don’t understand where your hostility is coming from. However, I would contend that the condescension in your post towards LL denizens is not warranted.
by katal on Feb 10, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
I can't ascribe motives to Dave because I've never met him
but I don’t think his post was hostile. I think he makes an excellent point here:
The sabermetric community will eventually have to either learn how mainstream articles work, or decide that everyone who writes for one is an idiot.
Look at how many times on LL alone people post things bashing the mainstream media, and there’s a giant pileon of OMGWERESOMUCHBETTERTHANTHESEMORONS that follows in short order. Hell, FJM made a career of stuff like that, and now everyone thinks they’re an amateur FJM when they see a mainstream media article and tear into it like a pack of hungry dogs. All of it misses the point.
The mainstream media is to serious baseball analysis what a Quarter Pounder is to a gourmet cheeseburger – they’re both the same thing, technically, but geared to totally different audiences and meant to satisfy totally different cravings. Some members of the saber community sometimes need to take a step back and be OK with that, because it’s not changing any time soon, nor should it.
And another good point:
Well, guess what, now a bunch of people who would never read FanGraphs are aware of how good Morgan is defensively.
This is the drum I beat far too often for some people – the way to draw people in is to educate, not alienate. If that mainstream media article, that some in the saber community find worthless, means that even 20 people click over to Fangraphs and start poking around, that’s awesome – that’s what we all want, a more educated baseball watching populace. You don’t get that by insulting the people who are not there yet by insisting that their favorite writer is an idiot – you get that by mainstream media dropping the occasional “hey go look at FanGraphs because this stuff is interesting” tidbit that more statistically inclined people roll their eyes at because they’ve known it for years.
Most people aren’t stats people, and most people (myself included) need to be led gently by the hand into the scary world of complex numbers because – believe it or not – some people find it hard to process. I greatly admire all of you – Matthew, Graham, Jeff, Dave, and all the whip-smart commenters here and at USSM/Fangraphs/wherever else who are advancing the science on their own – because most of the time I can barely balance my checkbook without hurting my brain. I have the advantage of hanging out here a lot so I can sorta keep up – but someone whose only exposure to “analysis” is via Baseball Tonight and their local sports page does not have that luxury and needs to be guided, slowly and with baby steps, into more sophisticated stuff.
So yeah, the mainstream media isn’t the saber crowd’s cup of tea, and that’s fine. But it serves a purpose, and I believe that was Dave’s point – and I didn’t read it as a hostile one, for what it’s worth.
by pdb on Feb 10, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 9 recs
I agree with this but I don't think the analysis has to be compromised or incomplete to achieve those goals.
For example, the piece could have been about Gutz being the best outfielder in baseball. It would have been just as surprising/interesting to a mainstream crowd and wouldn’t have required RJ to use such a small sample size.
Considering the importance of sample size in baseball I think people are justified in being disappointed with the piece.
by Nate Dogg on Feb 10, 2010 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No, it could not have
Again, this goes back to the “there are issues that have nothing to do with the story” aspect of writing for a mainstream site. We could not have written this piece about Franklin Gutierrez.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
You guys are obviously dealing with a lot of constraints we're not completely aware of.
I agree with you that it’s better to deal with the limitations than to tell ESPN to stick it but it’s frustrating seeing really good writers hindered like that. Especially when I know you guys could, if you were allowed to, write an equally interesting piece that would appeal to a mainstream crowd without having to stretch like RJ had to.
I don't see it as a hindrance
Really, look at the people who have written the Hot Stove U pieces, covering six weeks of prominent ESPN baseball coverage. It’s been Matthew, devil_fingers, RJ, myself, Dan Syzmborski, Kevin Goldstein, Tommy Bennett…
For six weeks, ESPN has given the blogosphere a voice to educate their readers. We’ve talked about WAR, UZR, the pinch hitter penalty, projections/regression, and a bunch of other non-mainstream numbers and ideas.
That’s a good thing. The result of this series is a more educated ESPN reader. How can we complain about that?
No, the pieces aren’t perfect, but neither is OPS, and yet it’s clearly a step forward from batting average. From OPS, we can get people to wOBA. From these Hot Stove U pieces, we can get people to understand that there’s a way to evaluate fielders beyond web gems and fielding percentage.
And if Nyjer Morgan’s abilities got overstated by 0.005% in order to make that happen, so be it.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
It's like teaching children
You don’t give a 10-year old a nuanced, adult view of the world, but you equip them with the tools to get there once they’ve started learning.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 10, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
I read all of the other FanGraphs ESPN pieces, and while they obviously weren't perfect, they were pretty good and did a good job of introducing the basics to the readers
I did not think RJ’s piece did that. It didn’t describe what went into UZR, or mention that it does not accurately measure retrospective value, and that it is basically worthless in a small sample size.
I understand that he is under massive constraints (and he did inform me that he wrote a paragraph about sample size that didn’t make the edit), so he is not primarily to blame. However, I think he made a mistake by putting so much emphasis on Morgan’s UZR (which really means very little in 781 innings) and I think his post was overall counterproductive towards educating the uninitiated.
That’s just my opinion, and I’m particularly obsessed with properly understand how to use UZR, so I can see why others might not feel this way.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 10, 2010 11:31 PM PST up reply actions
I do not think it was counterproductive
If I don’t know a lot about sabermetrics and you try to explain statistical concepts to me in an article about Nyjer Morgan’s defense, I’m probably not going to appreciate it. What I will appreciate is someone saying “Hey look, this statistic measures defense! And it says that this guy is very good. And the people who watch him play tend to agree with this statistic, so perhaps you should look into it,” as RJ seems to have done. This will bring my attention to UZR, and help me to see that it can be a valid way of measuring defense.
If Dave didn't intend for his post to sound hostile, then I apologize to him for taking it that way.
Look at how many times on LL alone people post things bashing the mainstream media, and there’s a giant pileon of OMGWERESOMUCHBETTERTHANTHESEMORONS that follows in short order. Hell, FJM made a career of stuff like that, and now everyone thinks they’re an amateur FJM when they see a mainstream media article and tear into it like a pack of hungry dogs. All of it misses the point.
I agree that we (LL, USSM, etc.) do that sometimes. I don’t think it was the case here, though. There were only a couple posts hostile towards ESPN, and one poster’s hostility was tempered after talking to Matthew and Teej.
I think that most posters here understand that we can’t expect an article from the traditional media to be as in depth as a piece from LL, USSM or FanGraphs. And when we hear Tony Blengino discus BABIP on ESPN Radio, or see Brad Adams giving the 101 version of Pitch F/X during an M’s broadcast, or read Geoff Baker admit that OPS+ can provide better information than OPS in some instances, we recognize that it’s a cool thing. I don’t think we expect too much.
On the other hand, I’m looking at this from the perspective of a sabernerd, so I guess there is some bias there.
There's no condescension
I’m standing up for one of my employees.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
Let me rephrase that sentence
It doesn’t convey the actual structure we have at FanGraphs.
“I’m standing up for one of our writers, who happened to be doing what I asked him to do.”
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions
And, while I'm responding
Look at this thread again.
Vatinus: “This is just ESPN being stupid.”
You: “it’s poor analysis.”
vivaelpujols: “It’s a surprisingly bad article”, “just awful”, and “bad precedent”
The idea that this has been some kind of high level discourse on the pros and cons of sabermetrics in the mainstream is just not accurate. RJ’s being criticized for doing a good job on what he was asked to do. If I’m defensive about that, well, I’m sorry, but I’m going to defend our writers when they do a good job and people complain about it.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Is vivaepujols inaccurate with this comment?
There is no problem with arguing that Morgan is a better defender than Guttierez; however, to use 781 innings of UZR to back that up is just awful. In that small of a sample, you should be regressing at least 75% to league average.
Regression and sample size issues are way over my head. When I read statements like this that are not followed by a sub-thread that challenges the statement, I take them to be accurate. If it’s incorrect, I don’t want to do that.
Somewhat, yes
Given what we know about Morgan’s physical characteristics, regressing him back 75% to league average is overly conservative to a pretty remarkable degree, and would lead to an incorrect assessment of his true talent.
And, again, I realize most of you probably can’t read the article, but RJ didn’t build a case on UZR and say “there, see, that proves it.” He linked to and discussed the Fans Scouting Report, where Morgan was rated as the best defensive LF in the game. He discussed the significant changes in run prevention on both the Pirates (for the worse) and the Nationals (for the better) after the trade.
It’s a good article. It’s not bad analysis, just awful, or anything else Nick called it.
by davidcameron on Feb 10, 2010 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't call it awful, I called it bad
And I stand by it. I mean no offense to RJ, you or FanGraphs and it was 100% a professional gripe. I’m not condemning RJ for it, because as you have told us, a lot of what he wrote was out of his control.
And yes, I realize my statement above was inaccurate. It was hasty. You always have to regress players to an individual mean (and a little bit towards league average to account for possibly attrition in physical skills), and Morgan’s is probably that of a +10 or +!5 fielder, ditto Gutz.
I have read the article Dave, and it appears to me that his primary argument was for UZR. He mentioned the Fans Scouting Report, which is excellent, and he did a kind of WOWY, which is pretty much worthless for one season, but it’s an interesting way to look at the numbers.
Again, as I stated above, any analysis that uses very small samples of UZR without regression is bad in my book (and I’m sure I’ve been guilty of that as well). However, it’s especially bad given that very few of the ESPN readers have any idea about sample size and measurement error in UZR.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 10, 2010 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with arguing that Morgan is a better defender than Gutz or whoever
I do think it’s absolutely terrible to be introducing 781 innings of UZR/150 as evidence towards that claim. I think he should have A) referenced the fan’s scouting reports and B) referenced the defensive projections out there already (Jeff Zimmerman, CHONE, Steve Sommer, The Fans), which take into account regression the mean and sample size issues.
I think that doing both of those things would be better than using actual UZR, and then explaining to everyone the problems with sample size. With the way he did it, I garauntee you that you have 5,000 ESPN readers now thinking that a half a seasons worth of UZR is a good measure of a players defensive ability.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 10, 2010 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
This paragraph came out a little harsher than I would have liked
But I have stated my views in a more considered manner twice above, so I hope people will reply to those instead.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 10, 2010 11:55 PM PST up reply actions
a)
Don’t trust UZR? No problem. Baseball analyst Tom Tango organizes the Fans Scouting Report on a yearly basis, getting input from those who watch the players on a daily basis. In 2009, fans voted Morgan as the best defensive left fielder in the game by a fair margin, and he earned an even higher rating than Gutierrez did in center.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 11, 2010 7:01 AM PST up reply actions
I wasn't saying he didn't use FSR, I was just describing what I think we have been the best way to go about it
I said I really liked that he used FSR above.
by vivaelpujols on Feb 11, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
