Chris Sabanty is a freelance web developer, software engineer, and sports fan from the Boston area. A lifelong Celtics fan, he’s sickened by Fisher’s flopping, Kobe’s “team-oriented” play, Sasha Vujacic, and the rest of the Los Angeles Lakers. So why write about them? As the old saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. For a brief moment he’ll take off his green-tinted, Heinsohn-style glasses and objectively look at the Celtics’ biggest rivals.

After making the NBA Finals each of the last three years and winning twice, the Lakers have to be considered a favorite to win again. But are they the favorite? The Celtics took them to seven games in the Finals. Oklahoma City, Chicago, and Houston have the potential to be new title contenders. The Magic remain a threat, too, particularly if Dwight Howard can improve his low-post skills. And if you haven’t heard, two 2009 All Star starters and a bunch of role players have taken their talents to South Beach.

Out of all of the contenders, Miami’s dramatically rebuilt roster has the most questions. Will Lebron play the point? How will all of their new acquisitions mesh? Do they have a Finals-worthy post-defender? But from a Lakers’ perspective, one question looms above the others. Have the Miami Heat surpassed LA as the team to beat?

The answer to this question begins with what the Lakers did last season.

Reviewing the 2009-10 Regular Season in LA

For the first-time Wages of Wins reader, the biggest shock might be that Kobe Bryant wasn’t the most productive Laker. Unfortunately for Kobe, productivity isn’t determined by how many studio analysts claim he’s the best player in the NBA. Kobe’s still very good, but he’s probably not the elite contributor people make him out to be. For more info, check out some of the other posts from the Wages of Wins including “Most Valuable Laker? Might Not Be Kobe”, “Kobe Myths”, and “King James and Kobe”. The cliff notes summary is that Kobe may score a lot of points and make some extremely difficult shots, but there’s more to basketball than volume scoring.

Like the 2009 champions, the 2010 Lakers most significant contributors were Pau Gasol, Kobe, and Lamar Odom-Kardashian. The only major difference between ’09 and ’10 was that Andrew Bynum suited up for the playoffs this past year. Even on a hobbled knee, Bynum was a huge upgrade over the other true center on their roster, D.J. Mbenga.

Having said that, it could be argued that Odom should have been starting over Bynum. Lamar produced more wins during the regular season and was a successful starter in the 2009 playoffs. However, an important difference is that in the 2009 Finals he matched up against an undersized Rashard Lewis. Starting against Kevin Garnett, even after a decline, would have been much more difficult.

Besides Bynum lasting a full season, another big subplot was the relative productivity of Gasol and Kobe.

As shown in the table above, during the regular season, Pau has offered more — on a per-minute basis — across these past three seasons (although what he did in Memphis in 2006-07 was similar to what he did in 2008-09 with the Lakers) while Kobe has declined. Their playoff performance, despite a smaller sample size, has also generally followed the same pattern. Note that their changes are relative. An average player produces a WP48 of .100, so both have remained well above-average in all of their recent seasons.

How will the Lakers do in 2010-2011?

Despite their success, the Lakers received little contributions from anybody besides Kobe, Gasol, Odom, and Bynum. If general manager Mitch Kupchak looked at Wins Produced to craft his offseason plans, he would have tried to acquire a point guard and a small forward. This is exactly what he decided to do.

Matt Barnes and Steve Blake would likely be upgrades as starters, but the Zen master probably won’t mess with his starting lineup. Assuming this is true, Barnes and Blake will provide some nice productivity off the bench, which LA didn’t have last year after Lamar Odom.

So how good will the Lakers be this year? In 2009-10, Wins Produced suggested they’d win 53.1 games and they ended up winning 57. A simple, naive way to forecast 2010-11 would be to subtract the unsigned players’ wins and minutes from last year’s totals. After doing that, we then apply the subtracted minutes evenly to Steve Blake and Matt Barnes. This method predicts the Lakers will win 66.8 games in the 2010-2011 season.

But will they actually win 67 games? Here’s a few reasons why the Lakers will be very good but probably not good enough to win that many games.

• The estimate doesn’t account for rookies or future transactions like the possibility of re-signing Shannon Brown (which it is reported the Lakers have done). Most other players will represent a downgrade over the estimated players.
• The estimate only uses last year’s data. Some players may have had had an unusually good or bad year.  In other words, a forecast of the future might want to consider more than just last year’s performance.
• Nobody knows what to expect from Andrew Bynum. He could be substantially worse or better depending on his health.
• After three trips to the Finals, Kobe, Gasol, and Odom have played a lot of minutes in recent years. There’s a chance some of their minutes will be given to lesser players.
• Steve Blake’s productivity may decline since he’ll be more of a spot-up shooter than a point guard in the Triangle.
• And of course, we are not forecasting injuries (and these do happen).

A more realistic expectation is probably 60-65 wins. Either way, the Los Angeles Lakers are definitely one of the best teams in the NBA. But are they the best?

Comparing the Heat and the Lakers

Forecasting the Miami Heat is tougher, mainly because it’s impossible to guess how many minutes each player will play. However, out of all of their acquisitions, there’s a good chance Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Mike Miller, and Udonis Haslem will see the court quite a bit. Therefore, we can assume each will play the same amount this next season as they did last year, with any remaining minutes divided evenly among the role players. Note that their rookies and Shavlik Randolph were excluded due to a limited NBA sample.

So how will the Heat do next year? The quick answer is they could be historically good.

Like the Lakers’ estimate, the forecast for the Heat is far from perfect. Lebron, Wade, and Bosh will likely have their minutes reduced due to blowouts and better teammates. Also, a rotation will be established and some bench players will see more minutes than others. Either way, all contributions will be almost negligible after the top 5 players. If those 5 play the same minutes and produce the same, the Heat would be on pace to win 70.7 games. In this estimate the entire team would be on pace for 73.5 wins, which would be a NBA record.

For fans of the other 29 teams, though, don’t give up hope yet. There’s a reason the games aren’t simulated on a computer. Some players won’t perform as well as they did last year. Maybe a jump-shot forcing 2-3 zone could stifle Lebron and Wade. And again, there’s also the chance of injuries, too. But as of right now, the Lakers — who appear to have improved — have still been passed by Miami.

- Chris Sabanty

Why Didn’t Shaq Just Retire?

This is the question I address in my latest for The Huffington Post.  For those who have read the Wages of Wins Journal for quite a while – and who also have an amazing memory – my answer will bring back memories of this post on Brett Favre.  

The discussion of Shaq was inspired by more than something I said about Brett Favre two years ago.  It was also inspired by Henry Abbott’s argument that Darko Milicic would do more than Shaq in 2010-11.  As I noted on Thursday, at first glance this argument seems hard to believe.  But if one looks at the career of Milicic, the age of Shaq, and how many minutes each will play next season; well, it is possible that Henry is correct. And Arturo Galletti reached a similar conclusion as well. 

Tom Ziller, though, thinks this is an easy call.  According to Tom, Shaq is clearly going to do more than Darko.  Consequently, Tom has taken Henry up on his bet.

In reading Tom’s argument, though, I think he has missed something.  Consider the following statements from Tom’s post on the subject.

• Shaq, of course, is more likely to miss half the season with an injury. There’s also the matter of Darko having already been named the team’s starter, while Shaq is likely behind Jermaine O’Neal on the depth chart right now, and will be behind Kendrick Perkins when the latter returns around midseason. Darko will likely finish the season with many more minutes than Shaq.
• Shaq, even at age 38, so thoroughly outperformed Darko last season that Darko will need that huge minutes advantages just to keep up.

In support of this argument that Shaq has “thoroughly outperformed” Darko, Tom looked at data on scoring, rebounds, and defense.  And after looking at this data, he made these two statements:

• So essentially, there is little data to suggest that Darko can outplay Shaq in the one area of the game where Milicic has the perceived edge. Which tells me Milicic has no edge, at all. The only chance Darko has in this competition, barring a Brady Anderson-like unprecedented mid-career boom, is for Shaq to be injured or relegated to spot duty by Doc Rivers.
• Beyond that, Darko outplaying Shaq? Good luck.

Okay, those are fairly emphatic statements.  And if we look at Wins Produced from last season, it looks like Tom is on solid ground.  Again, here is what I said on Thursday:

Here are the Wins Produced (the more complex version of Win Score) numbers for both players last year:

Shaquille O’Neal: 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.086 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]

Darko Milicic: -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.016 WP48

So whether we look at Wins Produced, or all the stats Tom references, it is clear that Shaq did much more than Darko last year.

Unfortunately, basketball was played before 2009-10.  And when we look at the data prior to this past season, we see that Darko has played better before 2009-10.  No, he is not great.  But remember, Shaq is old.  And Shaq is probably not going to get major minutes in Boston next year. So all Henry needs to win this bet is to have Darko to not produce in the negative range (something that has happened in the past) and to play many more minutes than Shaq. 

Now there are no guarantees that either event will happen. But in evaluating the probability that Darko will do more or less than Shaq, we need to consider more data than what we saw last year.  And when we consider more data, this does not look like an easy call.

One last comment on this subject… a few weeks ago Jeffrey Ma sent me a copy of The House Advantage: Playing the Odds to Win Big in Business (this is one of the advantages of having a forum like this blog, people sometimes send you books for free!!).  It is my hope to offer a complete discussion of this book in the near future, but for now I want to make two observations:

• Jeffrey has written a book on statistical analysis that is very easy to read (always a huge plus). 
• Jeffrey emphasizes a point I am trying to make in this discussion.  One needs to consider all the data in making a decision.  Restricting yourself to the most recent event will bias your judgment.

Again, there is much more to say about Jeffrey’s book.  And I hope to offer more on this excellent book soon. 

- DJ

P.S. Some people have noted that in comparing Darko and Shaq we need to consider the salaries each is being paid.  Shaq’s price tag next year is much lower.  Although this is an important issue for Boston and Minnesota to consider in evaluating each player, for the purpose of Henry’s bet this is irrelevant.  Henry simply argued that Darko would do more on the court.  He did not argue that per dollar spent, Darko would do more.  If that was the bet… well, then I think Tom would be on much more solid ground.

On Wednesday Henry Abbott offered the following bet/prediction: (Darko) Milicic will help his team more than (Shaquille) O’Neal will this upcoming season.  

Henry went on to explain his prediction:

I’m not saying Milicic will score more, play better D, have a better PER or anything else. I’m saying that over the course of this season, smart analysis will show he’ll produce more at both ends of the floor, in total. In other words, heck yes we’ll factor in defense, and heck yes, I’ll take the advantage I’ll get from the reality that he’s likely to play more minutes.

And that may not be fair in judging the better player, but it’s fair when we’re talking about the value of signing this or that player — players who can get on the floor are more valuable than players who can’t.

If the two have similar production, at both ends of the floor, we’ll appoint some kind of commission of stat geeks to poke into all the best available metrics — PER, SCHOENE, plus/minus, WinScore, or whatever they want to use — to break the tie.
Here’s what I’m really getting at with all that. O’Neal has a huge reputation. Milicic has a tiny one. But reputations aren’t everything, and in reality these two players are not so different.

My first reaction to this column is that Henry is likely to be wrong.  Here are the Wins Produced (the more complex version of Win Score) numbers for both players last year:

Shaquille O’Neal: 2.2 Wins Produced, 0.086 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]

Darko Milicic: -0.2 Wins Produced, -0.016 WP48

And if we look at Milicic’s career we see the following: 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.006 WP48

Given these numbers, it seems unlikely that Milicic is going to offer more than Shaq in 2010-11.  At least, that’s not likely if Wins Produced (or Win Score) is your measure.

But if you look at a different set of Wins Produced numbers… well, maybe Henry is on to something.  This is what Milicic had done each season of his career:

2003-04: 159 minutes, -0.6 Wins Produced, -0.171 WP48

2004-05: 254 minutes, -1.1 Wins Produced, -0.211 WP48

2005-06: 767 minutes, 0.8 Wins Produced, 0.049 WP48

2006-07: 1,913 minutes, 2.4 Wins Produced, 0.061 WP48

2007-08: 1,663 minutes, -1.6 Wins Produced, -0.045 WP48

2008-09: 1,034 minutes, 1.1 Wins Produced, 0.052 WP48

With the exception of 2007-08 – his first season in Memphis – Milicic has produced a positive quantity of wins when he has gotten minutes.  No, he is not a great player.  But his production of wins can exceed zero.

If we look at Milicic numbers after Detroit (where he spent his first 2½ seasons) and excluding the first disastrous season in Memphis (yes, I know these are somewhat arbitrary exclusions) we see the following: 4,260 minutes, 4.2 Wins Produced, 0.048 WP48

Now here is the key point Henry was making.  Milicic will probably get more minutes than Shaq next season. If Milicic plays 2,000 minutes – and posts a 0.048 WP48 – he will produce 2.0 Wins.  If Shaq only plays 1,000 minutes – and continues to post a 0.086 WP48 [what he did last year] – then he will only produce 1.8 wins.

Okay, there were quite a few assumptions made to get that result.  We don’t know how many minutes each player will play.  Darko was also in the negative range last year in Minnesota (where he will be playing this year).  And it’s possible Shaq will play better; although at his age it seems more likely he will get worse.

But the point of this exercise was not to establish with certainty who would do better.  The idea was to see if Henry had a good chance of being right on this one.  And I think – despite what I thought when I first read his column – that his chances are not too bad.  Darko Milicic might offer more than Shaq in 2010-11.

Let me close with one more observation.  Age ultimately destroys all athletes.  Last December I noted that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – one of the greatest centers in NBA history – was reduced to the production level of Spencer Hawes in the last year of his career.  We see the same story with Shaq.  Yes, Shaq in his prime is much better than Darko Milicic.  But Shaq is far removed from his prime. And at his age, he might fail to offer more than Milicic.

- DJ

Chris Iott – of mlive.com (my favorite website for Detroit sports) – recently asked the question: If no more roster moves are made, how good will the Pistons be this season?  In answering this question, Iott made the following observation: “Good health should count for something. The Pistons were decimated by injuries last season while stumbling to a 27-55 record.”

When I read these comments I contacted Ben Gulker (a fellow Pistons fan – who previously offered a great discussion on the relative merits of Rodney Stuckey and Rajon Rondo) and asked him to help me write a post centered on this question: How good would the Pistons be without injuries in 2009-10? In other words, were the Pistons really “decimated” by injury?

To answer this question we start with Table One, where we see what the Pistons did in 2009-10 (according to Wins Produced) and what we would have seen had each player maintained the per-minute performance we saw in 2008-09 (the performance of rookies – in red – are the same from both perspectives). 

The Pistons won 27 games in 2009-10, and that is essentially what we see from the summation of Wins Produced.  Before we get to the impact of injuries, it is important to emphasize the impact of Ben Wallace and Jonas Jerebko.  Of the team’s 27 wins, about 16 can be traced to the play of these two players.    Jerebko was a second round pick, so it seems unlikely that the Pistons were counting on him to produce six wins.  What about Big Ben?

Here is what was said about the Wallace acquisition last fall:

Dumars valued Wallace for his presence, his leadership and his intensity in the locker room. Any on-court production would be a bonus from a 35-year-old center who had missed 36 games during the past two seasons with assorted injuries.

“I just wanted to him to be an example for the younger guys,” Dumars said. “I thought he could still play, but I had no idea how much. I did know that, whatever he had left, he was going to give it all being back in Detroit. If there was one team that was going to get his maximum, it was Detroit.”

Ben Wallace went on to add in the same story:

“I came into this season with no expectations,” said Wallace, who was named NBA Defensive Player of the Year four times in Detroit. “I didn’t expect to play one minute. I was just coming in here to do whatever I could to help this team.”

The stats and these quotes lead us the conclude that the Pistons – who only won 27 games last year – would have been far worse had the team not received significant production from two players who were not expected to make much of a contribution at all.

Of course that observation doesn’t entirely get at the issue at hand.  What about the impact of injuries?  The second half  of the above table indicates that the Pistons would have won about 35 games had per-minute performance remained constant from 2008-09 to 2009-10.  This would not have been good enough to make the playoffs (and it is still the case that 12.5 wins are linked to Wallace and Jerebko).

Looking at per-minute performance, though, is not the entire injury story.  Injuries also limited the number of minutes the players were able to play.  To address this issue, we looked at how minutes would be allocated had Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, Charlie Villanueva, Ben Gordon, and Richard Hamilton played 82 games.  The results of this analysis are reported below.

The numbers for 2009-10 consider the per-minute performance we saw last year with our “injury-free” allocation of minutes.  As one can see, that improves the Pistons to about 31 wins.  If we take performance from 2008-09, though, the victory total rises to 41.  And that might have been enough to land the Pistons in the playoffs.

So were the Pistons “decimated” by injury?  Like much in economics, the answer depends.  Specifically it depends on what we mean by “decimated.”  More specifically, what did people think would happen if this team was healthy?  In 2008-09 the Pistons won 39 games.  If everyone was healthy last season, it is possible the Pistons could have replicated the 2008-09 season.  Of course, after giving all that money to Gordon and Villanueva, fans of the Pistons probably expected a better season than just a repeat of 2008-09.  In fact, Detroit fans might have expected something closer to what we saw in 2007-08 when the Pistons won 59 games.  It does appear that no matter how you slice the data, the Pistons – as constructed in 2009-10 – were not going to be serious contenders for a title.  And that suggests that the Pistons problems last year were not simply the health of the players.

This is also bad news going forward.   Of the twelve players listed on Detroit’s depth chart at ESPN.com, eleven were with the team in 2009-10.  The lone exception is Greg Monroe, the team’s reward for losing so much last year.  Unless Monroe is truly exceptional (and he wasn’t last year at Georgetown), the Pistons are probably not going to improve much in the standings with essentially the same line-up.

And this is the same conclusion reached by Chris Iott: … I would argue that the ceiling — the absolute best the Pistons could hope for this season with their current roster — is a .500 record and an eighth seed in the playoffs. More realistically, it would appear they are headed for another sub-.500 season — probably around 36 wins — and another trip to the lottery.

Yes, even if healthy the Pistons – as currently constructed – are not nearly as good as the team we saw back in 2007-08.  And until the construction of this team changes, the outcome for the Pistons is probably not going to change.

Update: Let’s amend this post with one more observation.  Arturo Galletti has updated his free agent guide and listing of winners and losers in the NBA this summer (if you have not seen this, click on over and look at what Arturo has done).  According to Arturo, the Pistons currently rank just behind Miami and Chicago.  Before fans of Detroit get too excited, we need to read Arturo’s explanation:

Detroit kept Ben Wallace and four of their current players. That’s real forward looking. 4 players for about $10 million per year that netted an average of 15 wins per year for the last three years. My Grade: B for good value but not enough

Yes, the Pistons haven’t made any significant mistakes this summer. But as Arturo notes, they really have yet to do enough to make real progress in the standings.

- Dave Berri and Ben Gulker

Arturo Galletti is an electrical engineer and statistician by education (masters in electrical and computer engineering), by vocation (he was worked across the past ten years  for the US government — as well as Baxter and Johnson & Johnson — to convert data into information and improvement actions),  and by passion (Minitab is great for stress relief and winning fantasy leagues). He was born and lives in Puerto Rico.  But his undergrad years were spent in Boston and he bleeds Celtic green.

8 million stories out there and they’re naked, city it’s a pity half of y’all won’t make it-Jay-Z

When we unveiled our metric for GM ranking in the NBA (in the post The Value Proposition in the NBA), we ranked every team according in front office performance from 2005 thru 2010. The New York Knickerbockers ranked last five of the six years examined, and avoided the sweep because of the particular savvy of David Khan and the tragedy that was the Washington Wizards.

As dark as it got for Knick fans, there was still hope at Madison Square Garden.  Their Knicks had a plan. They cleared out their historically deficient front-office. They were going to clear all their cap space for the magical summer of 2010. They brought in the coach who made the game beautiful again. The bright lights of New York and the promise of the hardcourts in the Big City would deliver to the Big Apple the kind of basketball it deserved.

But the Knicks plans did not survive first contact with the enemy. They did not get their man. Now normally as a follower of Boston teams, I would be happy at the misery of any New York team. But to me, the Knicks are different. Their fans know and respect the game. They know misery and have suffered for their glory. For fans of the game, having the Knicks be good makes the league better.

Sadly, when the smoke cleared, we all know how the story ended. Or do we?

Even thought the Knicks missed with their plan A they ably implemented a Plan B (or was it C?) that allowed them to overhaul their roster and significantly improve. But I’m getting ahead of myself.  Before we talk about who the Knicks will be let’s talk about who they were.

These were your New York Knicks:

39, 33, 23, 33, 23, 32 & 29, those are not Powerball numbers, those are the win totals for the Knicks over the last seven years.  To put it in perspective, that’s only better than the Bobcats by 22 games and the Bobcats only existed for six of those years. The Knicks achieved this dubious won-loss record with the league’s highest payroll. These teams were overpaid disasters and the 2010 edition — as the following table illustrates — was no exception.

If you look at the table above you’ll see that twenty players suited up for the Knicks in the 2009-10 season.  And six of these actually produced in the negative range.  Fortunately for the Knicks, five of these six “negative producers” will not play in New York next year.  In fact, the Knicks are only bringing back five players from last year’s squad (Wilson Chandler, Bill Walker, Toney Douglas, Daniel Gallinari and Eddy Curry remain under contract).  To put the roster purge in perspective, last year the Knicks generated 31 wins.   But as the graph below illustrates, 25 of these wins have departed.  With only a few wins remaining on the roster, the Knicks had a hard road to rebuild into a contender.

Plan B

While they have missed on the King, the Knicks got their big man in Amare Stoudamaire. They may have slightly overpaid for him, but for them “slightly overpaying” is progress. To fill out their roster they turned their best player (David Lee) into multiple pieces from Golden State. They then signed an above average point guard in Raymond Felton and an intriguing piece from Russia (Timofey Mozgov). Timofey Mozgov is a 7’1”russian Center who is well loved by DraftExpress (ranked #2 for overseas free agents). While a bit of a gamble, it’s a shrewd move for them because…. okay,  let’s face it, anything is better than playing Eddy Curry.

East Coast Seven Seconds or Less?

To project this team’s wins in 2010-11, we need to do two things: project out their productivity and guess how the minutes will be divided.

For the productivity projection, I looked at the raw productivity numbers (AdjP48) for the last four years, but primarily employed last year’s numbers (with a small adjustment for age based on avg. change at the age and position). These same steps were taken for each player.  The lone exceptions are as follows:

For Amare Stoudamire I used the 2^nd-half numbers from 2010 (0.470 ADJP48- Age adjustment). I believe this is an accurate representation of what he will do next season.

For Kelenna Azubuike… given the low minutes in 2010, I used the average of 2008 and 2009 for his numbers.

And for the rookies, I’ve adjusted their numbers to get a WP48 for the Position played.

The productivity numbers are as follows:

Now let’s guess at minutes played. Here, I again looked at historical data for each player and tried to logically allocate the team’s minutes. It’s important to note that this process is far from perfect.  There is also one big caveat (in more ways than one).  Some reports indicate that Eddy Curry is out of the rotation.  So it is assumed for this projection that Curry will not be playing. 

Beyond the issue of Curry, it is important to remember that there is no way to project injuries.  Injuries will happen in the NBA.  So a summer forecast will probably overstate a team’s actual results. In other words, the summer forecast is often just a “best-case scenario.”

Okay, enough caveats.  Let’s try and make New York fans happy.

As the above table indicates, the numbers for the Knicks suggest this team could win 48 games in 2009-10.    Such a leap can be traced to the

• elimination of negative producers
• the addition of Amare Stoudemire, Raymond Felton, Kelenna Azubuike, and Anthony Randolph (players who more than make up for the loss of David Lee)
• Eddy Curry always wearing a really nice suit on the bench.

So according to my numbers the Knicks – despite missing on LeBron – might have actually built a playoff team. This is also a very young and athletic team, that has a decent chance of having one of their young players (Walker, Gallinari or  Randolph) make a significant leap in productivity.

Plan C:

The final point I want to touch on is that the Knicks are also holding out the hope that if they build a good enough team, they can use their assets and cap room to bring in a free agent ( like Chris Paul) over the next two summers. I think they have done a surprisingly good job given their track record.  And I do hope for their sake, that when they dip back into the free agent market they don’t undo all the progress they’ve made as an organization.

My personal take is that this is a team that will look very much like the D’Antoni Suns of yesteryear. It’s a young, fun and athletic bunch that will bring excitement and fun back to the basketball temple that is Madison Square Garden.  And that is true, even if I don’t see them making a lot of noise in the playoffs. To paraphrase Jay-z and Alicia Keys:  “Let’s hear it for New York, New York, New York”

- Arturo Galletti