Wednesday, July 16, 2008

All-Star game thoughts

I'm sitting there watching the All-Star game last night. A great pitching match-up between the best of the NL and the AL. 

But, wait, if it is the best of the best, why is it a pitching duel? Couldn't it just as easily be a offensive slugfest? I mean, just the night before I watched Josh Hamilton hit 28 HRs in the first round of the Home Run Derby. I mean look at the AL hitters:

Mauer - .873 OPS
Navarro - .785 OPS
Varitek - .653 OPS
Morneau - .903 OPS
Youkilis - .933 OPS
Kinsler - .945 OPS
Pedroia - .816 OPS
Young - .777 OPS
Jeter - .740 OPS
Rodriguez - .972 OPS
Longoria - .861 OPS
Crede - .792 OPS
Guillen - .797 OPS
Drew - .984 OPS
M. Ramirez - .908 OPS
Sizemore - .913 OPS
Quentin - .900 OPS
Hamilton - .919 OPS
Suzuki - .737 OPS
Bradley - 1.049 OPS

Here's the NL:

Martin - .830 OPS
Soto - .891 OPS
McCann - .940 OPS
Berkman - 1.096 OPS
Pujols - 1.074 OPS
Gonzalez - .848 OPS
Utley - .955 OPS
Uggla - .978 OPS
H. Ramirez - .957 OPS
Tejada - .739 OPS
Guzman - .765 OPS
A. Ramirez - .901 OPS
Jones - 1.086 OPS
Wright - .878 OPS
Braun - .873 OPS
Fukudome - .791 OPS
Hart - .831 OPS
Holliday - .975 OPS
McLouth - .899 OPS
Ludwick - .962 OPS

These are some offensive juggernauts.  Yet, they only scored a total of seven runs. In comparison, looking at the league totals, the average OPS is .740 and 9 runs per game have been scored by teams.

Only four hitters (Jeter, Tejada, Suzuki and Varitek) were at the league average for OPS or lower, and yet they scored two fewer runs than in a major league game.

What's the difference?

My hypothesis - it has something to do with the All-Star game format, in particular the way pitchers are used. But, before we get to that, let's look at the total number of runs for the past 30 games. (Why 30? Statistically, I remember that being a "magical" number for a normal distribution. Plus, it keeps us in more recent times.)

Total runs over 15 - 83, 92, 98 (Coors Field)
Total runs 13 - 15 - 79, 94, 02, 03, 04
Total runs 10 - 12 - 93, 05
Total runs 7 - 9 - 81, 85, 89, 00, 07, 08
Total runs 4 - 6 - 80, 82, 84, 86, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99, 01, 06
Total runs below 4 - 87, 88, 90

So, let's look at the distribution:

Over 15 - 3
13-15 - 5
10-12 - 2
7-9 - 6
4-6 - 11
Below 4 - 3

So 20 games have 9 runs or less and 10 games have 10 runs or more. (Obviously here I'm assuming that 9 runs per game is the average throughout this time period - will go with it for now, but could use more research on that point.) More than half of the games had between four runs and nine runs.

(Interesting sidebar - 02-05 have larger scores - interesting possibility for research on steroids and the ability to make elite players, or that elite players were using. Maybe a way to pinpoint widespread usage - especially if we look at Barry Bonds 2001 season as a spark to go for the needle. Also - how long do the effects of training combined with steroid use last?)

So, the difference is obviously that pitchers only have to pitch one (maybe two) innings at a time. My question is: why don't teams try this during the regular season?

Let's assume that the ninth inning is the most important inning - that's why we see one inning specialists - "closers" - that already just pitch one inning at a time. What about the eighth inning? Well, if you have a stud number one pitcher, you could use him there, then your number two pitcher in the seventh inning and on down the line.

Of course, I don't believe that it really works that way. If you get behind early, it could have a negative effect as well. So, let's mix it up a bit and set the daily lineup for pitchers, like we do for hitters.

Inning #1 - #3 SP
Inning #2 - #4 SP
Inning #3 - #5 SP
Inning #4 - #3 MR
Inning #5 - #2 MR
Inning #6 - #2 SP
Inning #7 - #1 MR
Inning #8 - #1 SP
Inning #9 - Closer

So, each day, like with the hitters, you would have a defined position within the baseball game. A pitcher would be used each day to get three outs. Of course, pitchers will need rest, so you would carry two other pitchers on your roster to "spot pitch" innings in order to rest the regular pitchers and serve as extra innings pitchers.

In this case, each pitcher would pitch approximately 162 innings per year (which I believe is around the IP restrictions for young pitchers to avoid injuries). This would be a large increase for some relievers, but a decrease for starters. If overuse is a problem, this would reduce it over the entire season and spread 7 innings over a week instead of on one day (or two, given the week and the order of the standard rotation of today's game, not counting "pitching on the side" or getting up multiple times to warm-up in the bullpen.) Every pitcher would be in the game each day and contribute to the team win - and the "win" statistic would become even less meaningful. 

Of course, I doubt this would ever fly with conventional thinking. Not enough flexibility. Not the way things have been done. I know Tony LaRussa gets heckled a bit when he starts a reliever, and this is going well beyond that. Still, it could be interesting to see if this would tip the favor back toward the pitchers in upcoming years.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, January 07, 2007

First Base Legend

I've already detailed the statistical achievements of Mark McGwire in a previous post where I examined his place with the 1B hall of famers. There's no question that he has the win shares to be listed among the elite of his position.

Looking at his raw stats, you see 12 all-star selections, 10 years where he received MVP votes, 7th place all time in home runs, 10th in slugging average, 60th in RBIs and 78th in on-base average. Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey are 4th and 5th in his similarity scores.

However, all of this is irrelevant.

No one is talking of McGwire's achievements. No one is talking about his place in the history of the game. Voters just mention the magic word "steroids" and all the statistics, the bread and butter of the hall of fame, fall into the dustbin. Take away 20 home runs for every year he hit over 50 home runs (the signal of steroid use as we accuse Brady Anderson), he would still have over 500 home runs.

Well, let me tell you the story of another athlete who made it into the news in the last week, and who was one of the most hated men in the U.S. - and the most ridiculed. 30 years later, he is known as a great uniter.

Gerald Ford took over as President of the U.S. once Richard Nixon resigned due to Watergate. One month after he took office, Ford pardoned Nixon. A good deal of the country resented him for this action, and his political career never recovered. However, in 2002, a poll found that 60% of the people thought it was the right thing to do. Time heals all wounds, no matter how deep.

Where would the game of baseball be without the magical year of 1998, when McGwire and Sosa's home run chase captivated most of the nation? Would it be in the same position as hockey with all of the labor strife and lack of television ratings? Would it be more popular than it is today? I doubt it on both fronts, but I bet without McGwire, there wouldn't have been as quick of a healing time after the 1994 labor debacle.

McGwire is no saint. No man is - and I'll spare you the comparisons with other athletes, baseball or otherwise. All I know, is that one of my most memorable moments in a baseball stadium was game 1 of the 1998 season. I went to the game with Carolyn, a lovely girl from Australia who didn't know the first thing about baseball. I sat next to a gentleman in the bleachers whose visage is now dimming in my memory. During that game, McGwire hit a deep blast into the seats for a grand slam - his first home run on the way to 70. I stood and cheered and went crazy. Carolyn probably thought I was crazy. However, I turned to look at the gentleman beside me, who was there with his wife, and he looked at me as we were both lost in our celebrations. But, at that moment, we were brothers, smiles played across our faces, and the contact of our palms in a high five was just the outlet we needed to celebrate. I'll never forget that moment, and there are very few ballplayers who can create moments like that. 1998 was full of them for McGwire.

For every moment of doubt he has created with the tacit admission of steroid use, he has created a moment of joy in the game of baseball. The hall of fame is the chance for us to celebrate those great moments of the greats of the game - no matter their shortcomings.

However, no discussion of McGwire would be complete without mentioning McGwire's 2nd most similar player, the subject of the next analysis, and a name forever entwined with McGwire, on the field and off.

Biggest Influence in the Game

Jose Canseco. Bash brother.

The mere mention of the name leads even the non-fan (skipping the casual analogy altogether) with opinions dancing about in their head. From reality show appearances to rumors with a single named popstar, Canseco has never shied away from publicity. But, the biggest piece of publicity involved a little book he wrote, "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big."

Where would the game of baseball be without this book? The stone age as far as a comprehensive drug testing program? Probably. When this book was published, everyone immediately called him a liar and a cheat and promptly forgot about the book. Then the congressional hearing came about.

This was the forum that made Rafael Palmeiro a national joke and Mark McGwire a national hoax. "The game was tainted," yelled pundits from the rafters to any and all that would listen. Only grudgingly did they give credit to the man who gave the cry its initial credibility.

Did Canseco mean to start all of this? Or was he just looking to get his puss in the public eye again? (Speaking of which, has there ever been a more recognized baseball player than Jose Canseco since the Silver Age of Mickey Mantle? Only Derek Jeter in today's game would even come close.)

No matter his intentions, he got the game started on its path to a legitimate drug testing program with teeth, something needed since the days of Steve Howe. Just like McGwire helped to heal the game after labor difficulties, Canseco helped the game after the difficulties of the steroid issue, by exposing how rampant the abuse was.

Is Canseco a hall of famer without this addition? Probably not as my win share analysis put him closest to Andre Dawson and John Kruk. Still, he's close, as 30th all time in home runs and 61st all time in RBIs will attest. But, like Joe Torre, who is also very close, it is the other qualifications for the good of the sport (like managerial accomplishments or broadcasting skill) that make him a hall of famer.

Like him or not, as one of the most recognized ball players of the last 25 years, one of the most successful, and the one with the biggest impact on the future of the game, Jose Canseco belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Book review #9

You know Babe Ruth and Gehrig and Murderers Row....
The Whiz Kids, the Cardinals and the 69 O's....
But do you recall, the worst baseball team of all?

Cleveland's 1899 Spiders,
played some lousy baseball games
And if you ever saw them
You would hide your face in shame

All of the local papers
Used to like and them call them names
Misfits, Orphans and Forsakens
Were some of the most tame

OK, enough attempts at rewriting the Rudolph lyrics. If you want to read good writing about a really bad, bad team, it is a moral imperative that you pick up a copy of Thomas Hetrick's Misfits!: Baseball's Worst Team Ever.

Hetrick's book follows the 1899 season where the Spiders were on the wrong side of a baseball syndicate formed by the Robison brothers. The Robisons were owners of both the St. Louis and Cleveland franchises. Following the 1898 season, the Robisons moved the majority of the talented players from Cleveland to St. Louis and put the lesser players with the Spiders.

The Spiders finished with a 20-134 record, 84 games out of first place and 35 behind the next closest team in the standings. The St. Louis Perfectos thwarted the syndicate plan by finishing 5th in the league.

A season full of hapless ballplayers struggling through game after game could be taken lightly. The Keystone Kop nature of their play would be easy to mock. For the most part, though, Hetrick takes the high road and applauds the valiant efforts, futile as they may have been, that the Spiders made.

Besides its coverage of the worst major league team in history, Misfits! also provides insight into the conditions, among them the syndicate ownerships in the league, that led to the formation of the American League two years later.

This is a splendid book that belongs in any baseball fans library. It was originally printed by McFarland Press and copies of this clothbound edition can be costly. Hetrick, however, has started his own publishing company, Pocol Press, and has reprinted the book in softcover.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Are strikeouts overrated?

I have to take some time away to fully assimilate the in-depth analysis of Cal Ripken's Hall-worthiness my compatriot provided yesterday. While I do that I wanted to share some findings. I realized that the Kansas City Royals strikeout leader last season was Jimmy Gobble. He K'ed an incredible 80 (EIGHTY!!!!) batters last season.

Surprising, to me, is that six teams in non-labor stoppage seasons since 1990 have done the same thing:

2003 Cincinnati Reds led by Paul Wilson's 93
2000 Anaheim Angels (Scott Schoeneweis 78)
1997 Oakland Athletics (Steve Karsay 92)
1996 Oakland Athletics (Carlos Reyes 78)
1993 St. Louis Cardinals (Bob Tewksbury 97)
1992 Detroit Tigers (Frank Tanana 91)

Here are those respective teams' winning percentages starting with the Royals of last season and following chronologically: .383,.426,.506,.401,.481,.537,.463.

You'll also note that none of the above pitchers had much success in the following seasons.

There are two reasons that a team doesn't have a guy strike out one hundred batters. Either they don't have pitchers good or healthy enough to throw enough innings to accumulate 100 K's or they don't have someone with enough talent, either in power or command, to get that many. Or both.

For a team to succeed, they need to have a strikeout guy or at least someone with enough innings to get the opportunity. Look at what it took to get to the postseason for these teams:

1992 Tigers: It took fourteen years for the Tigers to make the postseason after their strikeout dearth. Needless to say everyone from the 1992 Tigers is long gone. The Tigers young pitching is what many people feel is what carried them to the playoffs this season. Jeremy Bonderman and Justin Verlander struck out 100+ at just age 23 while Nate Robertson got his hundred at age 28. Ancient wonder Kenny Rogers fell one short and young ace reliever Joel Zumaya missed by three.

1993 Cardinals: Donovan Osborne struck out 100 the year before and would not again until 1996, the first year the Cardinals reached the playoffs after the 1993 strikeout dearth. He would be joined by homegrown product Alan Benes who struck out 100 in his first full season with the team. His brother Andy and Todd Stottlemyre, both acquired during the pre-season also joined the hundred strikeout ranks giving them four pitchers in all.

1996 and 1997 Athletics: In 1999, the A's narrowly missed the playoffs. They had developed a pitcher in the minors by the name of Tim Hudson who led the team in strikeouts with 132 in his first major league season. The A's also got 100 from Gil Heredia, a fellow who had never had an opportunity to be a full-time starter until 1999 at age 33. The A's acquired Kevin Appier from the Royals to help make the playoff push. In 2000, all three struck out 100 as the A's reached the playoffs.

2000 Angels: Kevin Appier played a part in the quickest turnaround of this group of teams. The Angels acquired him from the Mets for Mo Vaughn before the 2002 season. Appier joined longtime Angels pitchers Ramon Ortiz and Jarrod Washburn in striking out 100. To this day I look at the 2002 Angels and wonder how the hell they became World Champions that season.

2003 Reds: They still suck. But they have Homer Bailey coming up. They have Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. They might have some success.

2006 Royals: Gil Meche, Royal Savior. Everyone else on this list developed at least one pitcher who became an anchor of the staff. Who will that be on the Royals? Luke Hochevar?

Just some findings, no serious analysis. Take from it what you will.

Friday, December 08, 2006

What name rhymes with shoo-in?


If I may quote Marvel scribe Stan Lee in the form of cigar chomping Nick Fury, without his Howling Commandos, "Nuff said."

That was easier than bullseyeing womp rats in my T-16 back home.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

The Seventh Ring of Baseball Hell?

Here are the stats of two players as they played from the ages of 29-35:

Player 1:
Batting average greater than 0.296 every year
Averaged 86 runs per year
Averaged 95 RBI per year
Averaged 37 doubles per year
Averaged 17 home runs per year
Had two seasons of slugging over 0.500
Had 61 SBs
Seven-time all-star

Player 2:
Batting average greater than 0.298 every year
Averaged 95 runs per year
Averaged 118 RBI per year
Averaged 38 doubles per year
Averaged 29 HRs per year
Every season a slugging over 0.500
Had 105 SBs
Four-time all-star
Hit for the cycle
Member of 30/30 club

Player one is a hall of famer - Kirby Puckett. Player two is eligible for the first time this year, and I doubt he gets the requisite 5% to stay on the ballot - Dante Bichette. Why? He has two major prejudices working against him - playing in Colorado, and not putting up large career numbers. I would argue that he receive serious consideration though, for like Puckett, both of these things were beyond his control.

The key part of the above numbers are toward the end for both players - number of all-star selections. Puckett was a popular player, with a winning smile and the love of the major media. Bichette was a player that was aided and abetted to his numbers like a common criminal in the rarefied air of Denver. Did Kirby get points taken away for playing in a hitter's park with no weather effects (like snow during April)? No - because people liked him. Dante just faded into the background like a 13-year-old at his first junior high dance.

If you want another example of the bias - look at the MVP voting. Only four times in those years did Bichette get votes for the MVP - he did finish 2nd once, but finished 14th, 20th and 21st the other times. Puckett got MVP votes five times, finishing 2nd once, 7th three times, and 21st once. Is there really that big of a difference in their numbers to warrant that big of a difference in perception of value? Yes, defense plays a part on Puckett's value - but is it really that big of a part? Puckett had 58.4 fielding win shares for his career. Bichette had 34.1 for a difference of 24 win shares or 8 wins over 12 full years for both - less than a win per year.

If I may put words in the voter's mouths - Bichette's numbers were not impressive because he was SUPPOSED to put up huge numbers in Colorado, therefore it didn't mean anything. Strike one against Bichette.

Strike two is circumstance. Puckett got points for ending his career prematurely - injuries beyond his control. Same with Sandy Koufax. Hank Greenberg (and others) got points for not being able to play during wars. Members of the Negro Leagues deservedly got points because of the social rules which prohibited black players in the Major Leagues until Jackie Robinson busted through like a comet. What happens when you don't get a chance to start regularly until you're 29? Is that a player's fault?

Who did Puckett replace in the Twins outfield in 1984? Darrell Brown. Who was in front of Dante his first three years with California? Devon White. Chili Davis. Tony Armas. Claudell Washington. Dave Winfield. All multi-year veterans (or hot prospects) that GMs and managers have always played before young, unheralded players. It's the way of baseball. Like an injury, is that the fault of a player?

Bichette proved that given the chance he could put up Baseball Hall of Fame numbers. Unfortunately for him, he did it in a place that doesn't get any respect (Colorado) and at an age when he didn't get a chance to continue earning respect (29-35). Unfortunately, that's strike three, and he won't get another at-bat for the Hall.

The Baines of our existence

For the first time in its 67 year history, the Baseball Hall of Fame is coping with the concept of player specialization and the criteria to be applied when assessing their qualifications to Hall of Fame induction. Last year Bruce Sutter became the first pitcher who was used exclusively in relief to be admitted to the Hall’s ranks. This season, another position takes center stage as a bevy of players who were designated hitters now are becoming eligible for induction.

The designated hitter (DH) is a very modern baseball creation. It was first instituted in the American League in 1973 in an effort to increase offensive output and thus, fan interest. By replacing the pitcher, usually the weakest hitting member of the lineup, with a player with greater offensive talent, fans would be able to see more runs score and theoretically have someone with a good chance of making a hit in every spot of the lineup. Purists of the game have argued that the designated hitter takes away the symmetry of the game. Before the DH, all nine players in the field also had a chance to bat. If one struggled in one facet of the game they could make up for it when they took the field or came to bat. There have been other arguments against the DH (encouraging beanball wars, causing injury to pitchers by having them pitch longer than they normally would since they cannot be removed for a pinch hitter) but there is no proof that these arguments hold water.

Although there continues to be those who would like the designated hitter to be eliminated, the position has remained for over thirty years and the DH was brought to the National League in 1997 upon the addition of interleague play. With the DH a permanent fixture of the baseball scene, it would be expected that those who perform well in the role would be accepted for their successes. Unfortunately this has not been true. The baseball writer community has seen fit to slight designated hitters as one-dimensional. This has been borne out in the Most Valuable Player voting and looks as if it will be a factor in the Hall of Fame voting as well.

This is unfortunate as there a number of great players who are on the Hall of Fame ballot who served significant time as a designated hitter. Among the players who were designated hitters, Harold Baines is the premiere candidate. No one in baseball history has played more games as a designated hitter than Baines’ 1652.

Baines falls a tad short on the numbers that are considered “automatic” induction into the Hall of Fame. He had 2866 hits, less than five percent off the magic 3000 mark. He had a career .289 batting average. His 386 home runs are impressive but not so much so as if he had added another fourteen for an even four hundred. But longevity is key to becoming a member of the Hall of Fame. Fully one-third of the players who have played 20 season in major league baseball are in the Hall of Fame. Voters are impressed by the accumulation of counting stats and the best way to achieve that is by playing a long time. Baines accumulated some impressive totals during his 22 seasons as a big leaguer.

Every Hall of Fame eligible player who has hit 350 homers, 450 doubles and 1000 walks is in the Hall of Fame with the exception of Dwight Evans and Harold Baines. Those who are in are Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Williams, Reggie Jackson, Foxx, Kaline, Murray, Musial, Ott, Yastrzemski, Frank Robinson and Winfield. His Win Share total of 307 places him among the top 200 players of all-time.

Some of those players mentioned above played as a designated hitter (Murray, Jackson and Yastrzemski). But among Hall of Famers, only Paul Molitor has played more than 1000 games as a designated hitter. He did not become a full-time designated hitter until he had spent considerable time as a third baseman and an outfielder. It is likely that despite Baines’ totals, he will be frowned upon because of his role as a designated hitter. With any luck, though, voters will begin to view these “specialist” roles with an open mind and Baines will find his way into the Hall of Fame.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Hall of Fame analysis

Every year around this time, baseball fans wait with bated breath to see who is included on the annual Hall of Fame ballot.

And every year around this time, various fans, wonks and self-professed “experts” hammer home the same thing about the same players. In the coming weeks, you’ll read about “Goose Gossage this….” and “Jim Rice that….”

People have written ad nauseum, ad infinitum and probably even ad hoc to get certain players enshrined.

This year, two candidates are shoo-ins, with Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn both first-year eligible.

But the ballot also provides some other interesting names — luminaries such as Scott Brosius, Devon White and Bobby Witt immediately jump out to me.

And that’s the point of this blog, at least for now. Over the next however many days, we will be analyzing each of the candidates on this year’s ballot and providing an argument on why they could or should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

We’re approaching this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because I don’t think anyone in his or her right minds thinks that Bobby Witt is a Hall of Famer. But this is also a way to hone our writing skills (OK, my cohorts’ writing skills, seeing as how I’m a professional and all), as well as our research and analytical skills, of which mine admittedly pale in comparison with Win-Share Boy (Jason McClain) and the Almighty Napoleon Dunklemite (Jon Dunkle).

Keep in mind that we are personally not advocating for each person’s inclusion — at least I’m not — the point is to try and see if there are any possible reasons for these people to be named on the ballot.

You’ll hear a lot about win-shares, perhaps some about VORP and also something about integrity and contributions to the game. Comments are welcome, and starting on Sunday, we should have our first post. So check back whenever you want and see what’s been written, if you agree, disagree or just have a good laugh (for which about 85 percent of the candidates will result in).

Before we go any further, here’s a quick recap of the eligibility requirements and what to consider when voting for a player:

3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
a) A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

b) Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (a).

c) Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

d) In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

e) Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

(These taken from the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s Web site, but I chose to omit the Veteran’s Committee rules).

And, here is the list of eligibles this year (note, this is not the list they will appear on the site – just who is eligible).

• Harold Baines
• Albert Belle
• Dante Bichette
• Bert Blyleven
• Bobby Bonilla
• Scott Brosius
• Jay Buhner
• Ken Caminiti
• Jose Canseco
• Dave Concepcion
• Eric Davis
• Andre Dawson
• Tony Fernandez
• Steve Garvey
• Rich Gossage
• Tony Gwynn
• Orel Hershiser
• Tommy John
• Wally Joyner
• Don Mattingly
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Paul O'Neill
• Dave Parker
• Jim Rice
• Cal Ripken Jr.
• Bret Saberhagen
• Lee Smith
• Alan Trammell
• Devon White
• Bobby Witt

So, stop on by over lunch, first thing in the morning, whatever you want, and let us know your thoughts….