Why statistics make LeBron’s ‘GOAT’ tag null and void

Ben Roar Guru

By Ben, Ben is a Roar Guru

Tagged:
 , ,

45 Have your say

    LeBron James has left the Cleveland Cavaliers. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

    Related coverage

    So yet another NBA season has finished, and here we are talking about the same thing we’ve been talking about for the last five or six years.

    Is LeBron James the cream of the crop, the numero uno, or is he simply a cream puff, a product made from the hype machine that is modern day entitlement and hysteria?

    One thing is for certain, and that is LeBron James will go down in history as one of the greatest basketball players to ever live. But can we please, for the love of sanity, start reading statistics (some people call it ‘research’) before branding James as the ‘Greatest of All Time’?

    James, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan etc etc. The NBA has had some absolute superstars across all eras, with some being the better at certain attributes than others. But how do we go about narrowing down the greatest?

    One way to not go about it is with your heart, because you will inevitably meet someone that will destroy your case with cold, hard, facts, or simple statistics, for ease of understanding.

    Whenever the GOAT basketball player argument is raised, there are only two players mentioned, that being LeBron James and Michael Jordan.

    As a youngster in the 90s, I was a mad-keen basketball card collector, and the one card I took most pride in owning were that of the great, Michael Jordan. Even as a child, I was more than aware of Jordan’s trials and tribulations growing up, and what made him the player he was.

    So, whenever LeBron James’s name gets brought up in the same sentence as Jordan, or even mentioned as the GOAT, I do my due diligence, and research the statistics.

    I don’t think of the cool name. I don’t look at the cool head bands. I don’t look at the materialistic garbage that plays a part in making LeBron James the superstar he is. I look at the statistics.

    Statistics show a lot of things. But most importantly, as I have previously mentioned, they show cold, hard, facts. The fact of the matter is that LeBron James simply doesn’t stack up to Michael Jordan in most relevant statistics to the argument.

    Michael Jordan Tall

    Michael Jordan (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

    People talk about LeBron’s scoring prowess (27.2 pg), but Jordan was better (30.1 pg). Jordan even played some seasons at 38-40 years old, and he still averages more points per game.

    People talk about LeBron being a better all-round basketballer, but once again, Jordan was better. LeBron won the NBA Point Scoring Championship once, Jordan did it ten times. James made the NBA All-Defensive First Team five times, Jordan did it nine.

    People talk about LeBron being the most dominate finals performer with his three NBA Finals MVPs. But yet again, Jordan was better. He had six.

    Even playing in teams that were built around him, LeBron lacks the statistics that matter.

    Now let’s talk about leadership shall we…

    LeBron has led the Heat and Cavaliers to a total of three titles. Jordan led the Bulls to six.
    LeBron has won three NBA Finals MVP awards. Again, Jordan won six.

    LeBron has won four NBA Most Valuable Player awards. Jordan won five!

    LeBron James

    LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

    Remember that a champion team is always better than a team of champions, yet even though Jordan was in what would certainly be classed as the former type of team here compared to LeBron. He was still the statistically better player.

    In fact, LeBron only beats Jordan in a single noteworthy statistic, that being that he made the All-NBA First Team twelve times to Jordan’s ten.

    Gone are the days where players were rated on just raw statistics and leadership skills. Gone are the days where it was more important to be valuable to your team, rather than tickling your own ego or pushing a political agenda.

    We have turned into such a selfish, ignorant, materialistic society, that looking at the statistics of players from times gone by isn’t even thought of.

    A society where the earrings and headbands you wear, the presidents you bag, and the catch phrases given to you by commentary teams are just as important to cementing your legacy as your god given ability.

    Now calm down, please just relax. I know there will be people reading this that are getting a little upset.

    I still think LeBron is worthy of most of the praise that is thrown at him. But for now, and very likely forever after this, LeBron James will have to settle for second (statistically speaking anyway) or even third behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the Greatest of all Time.

    And just remember for when this same argument comes up again next year… Look up the statistics, because statistics don’t lie.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (45)

    • June 12th 2018 @ 6:42am
      mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 6:42am | ! Report

      Stats may not lie but don’t confuse that with them answering a question they weren’t asked.

      When someone says we’re using statistical analysis and then ring counts and uses points per game we reached the nadir of basketball discussion

      • June 12th 2018 @ 7:34am
        Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 7:34am | ! Report

        Oh please elaborate. What should we be discussing when comparing these two men?

        • June 12th 2018 @ 8:42am
          mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 8:42am | ! Report

          Sure.

          Counting stats stopped being used as a credible basis a while back, the sloan sports conference has been going for more than a decade now.

          Basketball reference is a good starting point if you want access to better information. It will give you the three easy “all in one” stats, none are perfect but it’s a better stating point because it’s relative to your competition and takes into account more than just scoring. Then it has some Defensive ones (but it’s trying to attribute team defense based on the box scores and relative size – always tricky) and plenty of individual stat efficiency (you want to know which team rebounds better – look at their defensive rebounding percentage not total rebounds)

          The lists of sites with better stats after that is pretty extensive if you genuinely want to get a better handle on objective analysis.

          And to be clear I’d still have Jordan if forced to make a stats only call.

          Statically he and Bron jockey for position in the all-in-ones: Jordan gets PER, Win Shares per game and Bron gets Box” +/-. In Efficiency stats LeBron gets more of them (TS%, Reb%, Ast%, blk%) but the big gap is the Usage rate which is what made Jordan great. He scored at a TS% of an open role player whilst taking the highest portion of shots. (I ahven’t seen true,adjusted,real etc +/- that wast relaible back in Jordans day)

          But for whether it is a close argument for me on pure stats it comes down to – how do you treat the Washington years. If you include them then it’s a close call that will hinge on do you value Jordan’s prime over Bron’s longevity. I’d still take a 6 year prime when trying to split between two players so close.

          If you take out the Washington stats, which I would as it isn’t really a reflection of Jordan’s overall career: He was 38 and wandered down form the executive suite, then Jordan’s averages in the catch alls jumps lebron across the board and closes the gap in many of the individuals

          Though that said – I still am not sure it is really accurate (or fair) to compare across two different era’s and make a call based on such a small gap.

          As to your article you’ve posited that the only way to remove the “heart” is use meaningful stats which are Points per game, All NBA teams, MVPs, Finals MVPs and Rings when determining an individual’s.

          But in my mind all three of them are discredited by your own article.

          1. The MVPs and ALL NBA
          For starters these are subjective, they are voted on. So they don’t meet your own criteria.

          At best it’s an objective measure of the subjective views. It isn’t cold hard facts as it has been thoroughly reported on for decades that the criteria voter’s use varies wildly from person to person. The all defense has always been a bit of a joke as coaches have admitted to having assistants fill it out.

          Also they are binary. You either get them or you don’t. It’s basically saying if the voters put you second in the MVP you are just as good as Shane Larkin.

          If I was going to use any extension of this measure the only one I’d use is MVP award shares. Jordan gets that one but LeBron may chase him down, so it would come down to the same question as above.

          2. Rings, Finals MVPs
          Too dependent on the team to take the noise of other players contributions out. You admit to that but use it anyway.

          3. Points per game
          Look it’s a terrible stat to have as your only true objective measure because it doesn’t account for time on court, shots attempted, turnovers or value of the shots attempted. Let alone it doesn’t really say much about how you rebound, pass etc.

          But more importantly you say: “We have turned into such a selfish, ignorant, materialistic society, that looking at the statistics of players from times gone by isn’t even thought of.”

          Really to discredit the selfish current era you’re going to use points per game? Scoring titles just takes this to another level of adding the binary element into an already flawed measure.

          Also this is one of the strawmen you use – that no one looks at stats. Plenty of analysts are using stats to talk about Jordan and Bron. I think even the lakers are now sending a statistical analyst to the Sloan Conference

          .

          • Roar Guru

            June 12th 2018 @ 2:21pm
            Chris Kettlewell said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:21pm | ! Report

            Have to agree here. I’m a Jordan fan too, and would find it hard to go past him, but if you look at Lebron, he has the physical attributes that allow him to basically play any position on the court and match up with anyone. Jordan was really a pure shooting guard. Lebron is less of a pure scorer than MJ, but he has more than double the number of triple doubles.

            The article certainly seems to contradict itself lots. Having a go at people for not using objective statistics to compare, and then picking and choosing the ones that back up his argument.

            Again, I’m a Jordan fan, but I think in a lot of ways we aren’t objective about MJ either. He transcended the game in a way nobody else ever has, or likely ever will. 15 years after his retirement you can still buy Air Jordan’s. I can’t imagine we will still be buying Nike “LeBron” shoes 15 years after he’s retired. There was just something about Jordan that transcended the game, Basketball benefited from MJ every bit as much as MJ benefited from basketball.

            None of these things have anything to do with objective measures of who is better on the court. I personally feel that they are such different players that trying to really go head to head and say who’s better is a bit pointless. Just respect that they are two of the greatest ever to play the game and be done with it.

            Lebron has less rings, but he’s carried teams to the finals that really had no right even getting that far only to come up against the most stacked team in NBA history. Jordan has 6 final’s MVP’s because his team won the finals 6 times. Lebron has played in finals where he was clearly the best player on the court, by some margin, but doesn’t get the finals MVP because the rest of his team was nowhere near as good as the opposition and so his team lost and they don’t give MVP to someone on the losing team even if they were clearly the best player in the finals.

            • June 12th 2018 @ 2:38pm
              mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:38pm | ! Report

              Like you I have Jordan – but this is a really bad article that really can only serve as a lightning rod for Pro Lebron

          • Columnist

            June 13th 2018 @ 3:30pm
            Ryan O'Connell said | June 13th 2018 @ 3:30pm | ! Report

            An old school Mushi take-down. I’ve missed these.

            • June 13th 2018 @ 5:10pm
              Mushi said | June 13th 2018 @ 5:10pm | ! Report

              Fewer stupid articles must be the reason.

              We must remain vigilant

        • June 12th 2018 @ 8:44am
          mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 8:44am | ! Report

          Also on the leadership, there is a false assumption that they were leading the same quality of groups against the same quality of opponents to make this a valid comparission

      • June 12th 2018 @ 10:21am
        astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 10:21am | ! Report

        Ha! Yeah, somewhat disappointing to be told to do “research” and then quoted PPG as the first stat in the argument.

        • June 12th 2018 @ 10:27am
          Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 10:27am | ! Report

          The PPG is a pretty relevant statistic considering Lebron gets mentioned as the GOAT evvvvvvvery time he has a big point scoring game.

          • June 12th 2018 @ 10:49am
            astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 10:49am | ! Report

            Don’t see how that makes it relevant, at all.

            As mushi has just explained, PPG is flawed in any number of ways, but that aside, even if you looked at the average FGA, you’ll see Jordan averaged 23 shots a game vs Lebron’s 19.6…Don’t you think that might partly account for the 3pt scoring difference?

          • June 12th 2018 @ 12:40pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 12:40pm | ! Report

            I love it when someone uses stats and then says the hyperbolic “Lebron gets mentioned as the GOAT evvvvvvvery time he has a big point scoring game”. The zeitgeist in his early career had him behind Kobe FFS.

            Again you’ve created an implausible straw man in order to argue against it, and yet you’re still coming up as short as an Andre Drummond free throw.

            The only relevance of the PPG statistic is to demosntrate the quality of the analysis in this article.

            • June 12th 2018 @ 1:35pm
              Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:35pm | ! Report

              Yet if you take PPG out of the debate, Jordan is still the better of the two. Go figure.

              • June 12th 2018 @ 2:00pm
                mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:00pm | ! Report

                Clearly you’d been a mad keen buyer of Lis Simpson’s tiger repellent rock.

    • June 12th 2018 @ 8:13am
      JM said | June 12th 2018 @ 8:13am | ! Report

      Hi Ben, couldn’t help but notice your dig about reading (not researching) statistics before stating you yourself were heading off to “research” statistics. Lol.
      By the way, I’m with Jordan too.

      • June 12th 2018 @ 10:28am
        Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 10:28am | ! Report

        Mate, I think you may have misread something…

    • June 12th 2018 @ 10:37am
      astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 10:37am | ! Report

      One aspect of this argument that is consistently overlooked (even by me sometimes!) is that Lebron is still going. I thought this article earlier in the year on the Ringer was great: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/2/20/17031600/lebron-james-michael-jordan-statistical-head-to-head-edge

      Truth is, we don’t know where Lebron will end up, but if he does become the all time scoring leader, and the only player ever to reach 9,000 rebounds and 9,000 assists (or go beyond that) the case for him becoming GOAT is strong…

      • June 12th 2018 @ 1:05pm
        mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:05pm | ! Report

        Though the still going for me doesn’t change it – current LeBron is awesome and will be for some time – but he isn’t late 20s Lebron.

        LeBron has already played 7-8% more regular season minutes than Jordan, his efficiency averages are unlikely to go up from here and very few people have Kareem in front of MJ.

        The two breaks in MJ’s career and the no college in Bron’s make them really tough to get a like for like comparisson statistically.

        • June 12th 2018 @ 2:37pm
          astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:37pm | ! Report

          That’s true and the Kareem point is a good one.

          But I think the totality of Lebron’s achievements once he’s done, will make the argument for him being the GOAT more compelling…not more accurate or true, just a better/more compelling narrative. Especially if he breaks new ground in terms of scoring, assists, rebounds etc

          • June 12th 2018 @ 2:47pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:47pm | ! Report

            Fair point, it will be a “hook” for a line of argument.

    • Roar Rookie

      June 12th 2018 @ 12:04pm
      josh said | June 12th 2018 @ 12:04pm | ! Report

      As much as James is 3-6 in the finals, he has never lost in the first round of the play-offs.

      Yes Jordan is 6-0 in the finals, but he is 6-13 in terms of making the finals from the post season, James is 9-13 that is a pretty remarkable achievement in consistently playing to a very high level.

      • Roar Rookie

        June 12th 2018 @ 1:30pm
        josh said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

        No I’m pointing his consistency in achieving to a high level.

        Plenty of others have poked holes in your arguments and this is the gutter level you respond with?

        In terms of stats across most key indicators they are close, it comes down to probably theera you watched.

        To use rings as the final call, means you need to accept Robert Horry beats Jordan, with Bill Russell sitting atop the heap. But people don’t cause they realise there is more to a players worth than rings. It’s why players with zero rings are still respected.

        You can like who you like, whatever, but using stats as a basis is only indicating your poor ability to grasp basic statistical concepts and their worthiness for inclusion in argument.

        • June 12th 2018 @ 1:50pm
          Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:50pm | ! Report

          Once again Josh, you are being a Lebron nut hugger here. You really, really like Lebron, ok, I’m perfectly fine with that because I think he is one of the greatest and you are also entitled to your opinion. But this article is about statistics, with almost all statistics showing that while Lebron is a “great”… he is certainly not the “greatest”

          “To use rings as the final call”. Good try. there are many areas I have mentioned in the article where MJ covers Lebron. But people like yourself are the reason “because you will inevitably meet someone that will destroy your case with cold, hard, facts, or simple statistics, for ease of understanding” was put in this article.

          I think MJ is the greatest basketball player to ever live, and plenty of statistics that prove it. You think Lebron is the greatest basketball player of all time because he looks cool, has a cool name, and you refuse to look at statistics that say anything other than what you believe.

          • June 12th 2018 @ 2:26pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:26pm | ! Report

            Did you look at assits per game?

          • June 12th 2018 @ 2:30pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:30pm | ! Report

            This article is the kind of dross that makes people distrust stats

      • June 12th 2018 @ 1:36pm
        mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:36pm | ! Report

        Wow and you must really be at the low ebb of things to defend yourself with when you run with a slur like nut hugger because you are seemingly incapable of constructing a rational argument for your point of view.

        Nothing you wrote in your article is remotely useful and nothing you’ve posted in support of it is remotely rationale.

        You’re now arguing that losing in the first round is a positive versus losing in the finals because your little opus of insipidity hasn’t been met with grand acclaim.

        • June 12th 2018 @ 1:54pm
          Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:54pm | ! Report

          “Nothing you wrote in your article is remotely useful and nothing you’ve posted in support of it is remotely rationale”

          Worst comment of the day right here… Please tell me how you judge a players “greatness”, if you think statistics aren’t useful in judging?

          • June 12th 2018 @ 2:17pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:17pm | ! Report

            Worst comment of the day – thanks Donald. I’m assuming none of your own qualify as that is rarefied air?

            How do you take from my comment that I’m saying you can’t use statistics at all?

            My first issue is the use of a slur when someone uses a derivative of your own statistics because you can’t create an argument that separates your use and theirs.

            And then my other issue is that the stats you’ve chosen are terrible for the task at hand and how you are unaware that your own narrative discredits them.

            Plus there is the overriding issue of – is there an ability for us to glean the “right” answer for this? I don’t think so, and your out dated and ill suited “statistical analysis” is a poor counter to that.

        • June 12th 2018 @ 1:59pm
          Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:59pm | ! Report

          Hey, Usain Bolt is an 8x Olympic Gold medallist, and 11x world champion. He also holds the 100m and 200m world records. Is it these statistics that make him the greatest sprinter of all time, or are these statistics not “useful” too?

          • June 12th 2018 @ 2:25pm
            mushi said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:25pm | ! Report

            Do you know what a false equivalence is?

            Here you’re arguing that PPG or Rings are as reliable a measure of performance as winning in Sprinting, a closed execution, individual sport, with one measured attribute and on common terms.

            • June 12th 2018 @ 2:49pm
              astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:49pm | ! Report

              TAKE THAT FOR DATA!

      • June 12th 2018 @ 3:10pm
        astro said | June 12th 2018 @ 3:10pm | ! Report

        Thanks for revealing the truth behind this article with that comment, Ben…

        So, you clearly hate Lebron. Why not then just write an article about how you hate Lebron and his “cool name” or headband or his stance against Trump? Why even try to use “stats” or bring Jordan into this, when you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about, and no ability to defend your position without being offensive?

        Is it because on some level you know that your hatred of Lebron is completely irrational?

    • June 12th 2018 @ 12:23pm
      Roger said | June 12th 2018 @ 12:23pm | ! Report

      Disappointing. You quoted these “cold, hard facts” and notably left out any statistic that would help support Lebron. One of the worst cases of confirmation bias I have read in a while.

      I still also love how all these basic comparison articles put so much value on “rings” and “MVP’s” yet 11 Time Champion, 5 Time MVP, 12 time All Star, 2nd All time In rebounds basically never gets a mention. In fact he didn’t even get a mention in your “superstars across all eras” section.

      Surely if Stats are it, Jordan never caught Russell. He fell 5 rings short?! And Jordan was 16rpg behind?

      Maybe, just maybe, statistics don’t say it all?

      • June 12th 2018 @ 1:33pm
        Ben said | June 12th 2018 @ 1:33pm | ! Report

        As I mentioned in the article, some are better at certain attributes than others. Netherless, Bill Russell’s rebound record and champion records are excellent. He’s definitely worth a mention as one of the greats of the sport. But you can’t critique someone for “confirmation of bias”, than two paragraphs later produce TWO areas where Russell was better than Jordan to somehow put an argument across as him being the better basketballer. How ridiculous.

        • Roar Guru

          June 12th 2018 @ 2:35pm
          Chris Kettlewell said | June 12th 2018 @ 2:35pm | ! Report

          Actually, he didn’t. He showed that there are stats where Russell is well ahead of Jordan, including some that you are using to put Jordan ahead of Lebron (see number of championships) yet nobody would argue Russell was the greatest of all time and greater than Jordan.

          I am a Jordan fan, I grew up watching him, but I actually think that such things, and the way he just transcended the game the way nobody else ever has, causes bias for Jordan and makes us less objective.

          Jordan was more a pure scorer. He was a great defensive player too, but he was pretty much a pure shooting guard. Lebron is someone who can physically play pretty much any position on court, he regularly runs the point, but can physically post up against just about anyone in the game. He scores less points per game overall, but has more rebounds and assists, and scores a lot more triple doubles than Jordan. He regularly comes out of games having lead just about every statistical category, not just scoring.

          So while I would find it hard to go past Jordan on the GOAT argument, Lebron certainly has to be in the conversation.

          • Roar Pro

            June 12th 2018 @ 8:20pm
            Jason Andrews said | June 12th 2018 @ 8:20pm | ! Report

            Hi Ben, great article. Lebron is the best of his generation but is far from being the GOAT. MJ and Magic were way better, plus did they ever play in a losing grand final team? Micheal Jordan is a forever will be the GOAT in baskbetball

            • Roar Guru

              June 13th 2018 @ 8:56am
              Chris Kettlewell said | June 13th 2018 @ 8:56am | ! Report

              I don’t think the “never played in a losing grand final team” thing really matters as much as some people try to suggest. Lebron has played in otherwise poor teams where he’s managed to drag them all the way to the finals only to meet up with really stacked teams like the Warriors. Sorry, but MJ or Magic wouldn’t have been able to carry that Cav’s team to the title over the Warriors team either.

              The difference for MJ especially was his biggest challenge was in the same conference, so once he was able to get into the finals it was because they finally managed to build a championship team that could win the finals.

              So I would definitely put MJ ahead of Lebron. But I think saying “way better” is probably a stretch. But outside just the pure on-court abilities, there was something about MJ that just transcended the game and puts him in a different stratosphere.

            • June 13th 2018 @ 2:18pm
              mushi said | June 13th 2018 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

              It figures that Mr Andrews finds this “statistical analysis” compelling

    • June 13th 2018 @ 3:46pm
      xomi said | June 13th 2018 @ 3:46pm | ! Report

      You said in one of the final paragraphs “Gone are the days where it was more important to be valuable to your team” and insinuated that Jordan was more valuable to his team than Lebron ever was. This is just straight up incorrect. The year after Jordan retired for the first time, the Chicago Bulls won 55 GAMES! 55! And got to the Eastern Conference Semis (which Jordan himself struggled to do a couple times in his early career) due to great leadership from Scottie Pippen. There is simply no team Lebron has EVER been on that would win 55 games without him (even Miami in which they would get slightly above 55 games a year WITH Lebron), so saying that Lebron is less valuable to his teams is one of the most weak points you could have possibly made in your article. Do better tomorrow.

      • June 14th 2018 @ 11:32am
        Ben said | June 14th 2018 @ 11:32am | ! Report

        While Lebron is getting all of these statistics he gets (because as an individual he is a superstar) he fails to lift the players around him to a different level.

        Your argument here is a classic straw man argument. Perhaps Scott Pippen was a very good leader himself. Did he lead the Bulls to any championships? If he didn’t, he wasn’t as good a leader as MJ, perhaps he was on par with Lebron…

        • Columnist

          June 14th 2018 @ 2:56pm
          Ryan O'Connell said | June 14th 2018 @ 2:56pm | ! Report

          LeBron fails to lift players to a different level? That’s absolute BS.

          Tristan Thompson and Matthew Dellavedova got PAID because of LeBron. He’s added at least two years to the walking corpse that is Kyle Korver’s one-dimensional game. He somehow got Jeff Green to be productive enough to help eliminate Boston from the playoffs.

          Ask Mike Miller, Mario Chalmers, Channing Frye, Eddie House, Mo Williams, etc, how much better he made them look.

          • June 14th 2018 @ 5:27pm
            Mushi said | June 14th 2018 @ 5:27pm | ! Report

            Ryan I’m disappointed by this response, you could have achieved much more with your knowledge of the game.

            • June 15th 2018 @ 6:58am
              Ryan OConnell said | June 15th 2018 @ 6:58am | ! Report

              I was in a hurry!

    Explore:
    , ,