I saw the argument in the game thread....

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53374:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:49 PM:name=PcB)-->QUOTE (PcB @ Jul 29 2009, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53373:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53237:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53232:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53172:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You're leaving out some factors, BT.

- The bases were loaded. A HBP, and a walk both score a run there. If you work the count instead of flail away trying to bunt, you've got a pretty good chance that Valverde drives the run home on his own.

- Because Valverde was wild, the liklihood of him *not* throwing a buntable pitch was higher (nevermind what happened -- it doesn't factor into Lou's decision), leaving Bradley out to dry.

- Fontenot is a LHB, making the play that much easier to read for Pudge.

- I don't think 40% is high enough for Fox. The fact that he is hitting .312 means there's already a 31% chance that he gets a base hit. 31% is the foundation. Add in the odds of him being able to hit a medium-to-deep flyball, and the possibility of drawing a walk, and the odds are much, much greater than 40%.

And even if the odds are as you present, why would you ever choose the 30% probability over the 40% probability? I still don't understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Forget it. I could go point by point (your much much greater than 40 percent is fantasy, since you'd be counting hits like his Home Runs twice if you add flyballs to average), but you are such a stubborn broad sometimes it makes my hair hurt. What's left of it. I could spend hours crunching numbers, finally coming to the conclusion that Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving him in, and the bunt had a 39 percent chance, and you would simply say " Can someone please explain why you'd chose the 39 percent over the 40? I really don't get it. It makes no sense to me". Then you'd call the guy who chose the 39 percent option insane.

I truly hope someday they build your robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages. Then maybe you'll blame his players for fucking up rather than Coach Bender's thought process.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd bet my life savings, my house, and everything that I own and ever will own that if a human manager who manages by his "gut" and a robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages managed the same exact team over the same 162 game schedule, the robotic manager would lead the team to more wins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
tail pipes feel a helluva lot better than vaginas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...it's really just for special occasions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

YAHTZEE!!!

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53377:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take off "his gut" and it doesn't change my wager.

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=53379:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:51 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53374:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:49 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Jul 29 2009, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53373:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53237:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53232:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53172:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You're leaving out some factors, BT.

- The bases were loaded. A HBP, and a walk both score a run there. If you work the count instead of flail away trying to bunt, you've got a pretty good chance that Valverde drives the run home on his own.

- Because Valverde was wild, the liklihood of him *not* throwing a buntable pitch was higher (nevermind what happened -- it doesn't factor into Lou's decision), leaving Bradley out to dry.

- Fontenot is a LHB, making the play that much easier to read for Pudge.

- I don't think 40% is high enough for Fox. The fact that he is hitting .312 means there's already a 31% chance that he gets a base hit. 31% is the foundation. Add in the odds of him being able to hit a medium-to-deep flyball, and the possibility of drawing a walk, and the odds are much, much greater than 40%.

And even if the odds are as you present, why would you ever choose the 30% probability over the 40% probability? I still don't understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Forget it. I could go point by point (your much much greater than 40 percent is fantasy, since you'd be counting hits like his Home Runs twice if you add flyballs to average), but you are such a stubborn broad sometimes it makes my hair hurt. What's left of it. I could spend hours crunching numbers, finally coming to the conclusion that Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving him in, and the bunt had a 39 percent chance, and you would simply say " Can someone please explain why you'd chose the 39 percent over the 40? I really don't get it. It makes no sense to me". Then you'd call the guy who chose the 39 percent option insane.

I truly hope someday they build your robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages. Then maybe you'll blame his players for fucking up rather than Coach Bender's thought process.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd bet my life savings, my house, and everything that I own and ever will own that if a human manager who manages by his "gut" and a robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages managed the same exact team over the same 162 game schedule, the robotic manager would lead the team to more wins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
tail pipes feel a helluva lot better than vaginas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...it's really just for special occasions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

YAHTZEE!!!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
STEAK DINNER BOOM!

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=53324:date=Jul 29 2009, 04:54 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53314:date=Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's the biggest problem I have with what you're saying, Butch. Sure, the highest percentage play is the "best" play. But it is absolutely impossible to break down a single play into such a simple, finite, single number. There is no way to say "Fox had a 35.7% chance to drive in the run, whereas Fontenot squeezing had a 31.4% chance." There is so much that goes into every pitch, every play, that can never be accounted for, that breaking things down like this simply doesn't work. So sure, you, and most people (probably me included), think having Fox swing away was the best option. But it is entirely conceivable that, through everything Lou knows about his players, the situation, and the game, he thought a squeeze was a statistically sound play. And because there is no proof whatsoever that's an incorrect thought, the squeeze argument has a defense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde <i>had</i> to throw a strike, and he was going to do everything he could to do so. A fastball was almost a given, and Valverde isn't generally known for wildness. There's reason to think he would be getting a good pitch to bunt. (You're right, there's also reason to think he wouldn't, but there's both sides to that argument. Just because Lou was on the other side of you, doesn't mean he was on the wrong side.)

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OR: Lou knows his roster well, he's familiar with Fontenot's ability to bunt. He clearly thought Fontenot was plenty capable, and I don't think that's outlandish. Fontenot had 3 sac bunts last season in under 300 PAs, it's not like he's never done this before.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, these are reasons against it. But <i>nobody</i> was expecting it, which also increases the probability, possibly so much so that Lou was virtually positive that if Fontenot could get the bunt down, Bradley would score and the game would be over. Even if I don't fully agree with that, I don't see it as some crazy, ridiculous thought.

BTW, I'm not attempting to disprove each of your points, I'm just giving plenty reasonable opposing thoughts that may have run through Lou's mind.

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53380:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53377:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take off "his gut" and it doesn't change my wager.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's the flaw...how does the robomanager account for evaluating talent? Since statistics are evaluated retrospectively, how does, say, the robot manage a low A team?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53384:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53380:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53377:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take off "his gut" and it doesn't change my wager.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's the flaw...how does the robomanager account for evaluating talent. Since statistics are evaluated retrospectively, how does, say, the robot manage a low A team?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=53385:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:58 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53384:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53380:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53377:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take off "his gut" and it doesn't change my wager.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's the flaw...how does the robomanager account for evaluating talent. Since statistics are evaluated retrospectively, how does, say, the robot manage a low A team?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? It's a perfectly valid question. Make sure you unplug the vacuum after you're done fucking it.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53386:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:03 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 06:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53385:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:58 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53384:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53380:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53377:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take off "his gut" and it doesn't change my wager.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here's the flaw...how does the robomanager account for evaluating talent. Since statistics are evaluated retrospectively, how does, say, the robot manage a low A team?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? It's a perfectly valid question. Make sure you unplug the vacuum after you're done fucking it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine, if you really want to do this.

I was only talking about a major league team. But if you'd like to extend it, then the robot manager in low A could use college/high school stats. Or hell, maybe we'll throw the humans a bone and let them manage at the single A level.

[Butcher]

I'm just going to copy and paste this, since nobody has responded to it and I think it's important:

Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.

[Giff]

I guess I don't count?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53389:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I don't count?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? That was my response to your post. Did you respond to it? If so, I apologize -- I didn't see it.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=53403:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53389:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I don't count?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? That was my response to your post. Did you respond to it? If so, I apologize -- I didn't see it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look 7 posts up...(I broke it up to make it easier to respond to.)

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53404:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:29 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53403:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53389:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I don't count?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? That was my response to your post. Did you respond to it? If so, I apologize -- I didn't see it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look 7 posts up...(I broke it up to make it easier to respond to.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry dude. I lost it in between the bz vacuum-fucking posts.

I think you made some valid points, but I'm on the train, typing this on my phone. I'll respond later after my kids are I'm bed. I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.

[Giff]

<!--quoteo(post=53406:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:36 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53404:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:29 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53403:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53389:date=Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I guess I don't count?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? That was my response to your post. Did you respond to it? If so, I apologize -- I didn't see it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look 7 posts up...(I broke it up to make it easier to respond to.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry dude. I lost it in between the bz vacuum-fucking posts.

I think you made some valid points, but I'm on the train, typing this on my phone. I'll respond later after my kids are I'm bed. I honestly didn't mean to ignore you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] No worries, I was just playing.

[Butcher]

Giff -- Here's a quick response...

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: It was a 1-0 count, with the bases loaded. Valverde had to throw a strike, and he was going to do everything he could to do so. A fastball was almost a given, and Valverde isn't generally known for wildness. There's reason to think he would be getting a good pitch to bunt. (You're right, there's also reason to think he wouldn't, but there's both sides to that argument. Just because Lou was on the other side of you, doesn't mean he was on the wrong side.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Valverde had to throw strikes before that. I mean, surely he didn't want to load the bases in that situation, right? I don't think it was a lack of desire to throw a strike -- he had shown that he was having a helluva time with the ability to throw a strike in that inning (I know he isn't generally known for wildness, but everyone saw that he was all over the place in THAT INNING).

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->OR: Lou knows his roster well, he's familiar with Fontenot's ability to bunt. He clearly thought Fontenot was plenty capable, and I don't think that's outlandish. Fontenot had 3 sac bunts last season in under 300 PAs, it's not like he's never done this before.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems to me that you'd like to see someone perform more bunts than that before you could say with any degree of certainty that you're ready to put them in a game situation like that.


So, even if I concede those points (which I don't), I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, it wasn't the ideal situation to execute a suicide squeeze -- a high-risk play to begin with.

Then, like I said before, this wasn't even factoring in the Fox situation.

Fox HAD TO COME INTO THE GAME. By using Fontenot there, he wasted a bench spot and it was completely unnecessary.

The fact that the squeeze was a low-percentage play, given the circumstances, is only part of the reason it was a stupid move. You factor in the Jake Fox portion of it and it is vaulted into the realm of retarded.