This from Zach Rymer... whoever the heck he is!

[klaiggeb]

It's not entirely clear where the San Francisco Giants stand in relation to the luxury tax threshold, but they've consistently acted like a team that wants to be under it. Assuming that mission is accomplished, an active offseason should ensue.

Still, the Giants may not be able to make any huge splashes unless they clear one or more of their big contracts. The most logical solution would be to trade Brandon Belt, whose first base job may be the best spot for a crumbling Buster Posey anyway.

And yet, it's not the most convenient time for a Belt trade. He's had some injury problems over the last two seasons. He's also been in a bad offensive slump since June. These things do not good trade value make.

If not Belt, the Giants may have to consider dealing Evan Longoria, Mark Melancon or even Brandon Crawford or Madison Bumgarner instead.

He likely wrote this before we moved McCutchen.

Everybody else on his list, with the exception of Bum and Crawford, can head out the front door.

[rog]

Good analysis, including the pitfalls of trading Brandon Belt now (slump, injury and neither Joey Bart nor Chris Shaw ready).

One of the Giants' missions -- as was the case with many of the other big spenders -- was indeed to stay below the luxury tax threshold. That's a big part of what made last off-season so difficult. It appears that with the trade of Andrew, the Giants have achieved that goal.

They will have money to spend this off-season. How they spend it will be another matter. They are handicapped by their park and by their no longer being viewed as a big-time pennant threat.

Dealing Longoria, Melancon, Cueto or Samardzija would be tough for salary reasons. If the Giants are unable to reach an agreement with Madison, it might be wise to trade him rather than getting little for him when he can become a free agent a year from now. But with Cueto and quite possibly Samardzija out for most of if not all of next season, who would lead the staff?

How would we like to be Bobby Evans and Brian Sabean? Once again this winter their job is extremely tough, and it isn't helpd any by their fighting the current by not rebuilding. We said last winter that if the Giants could pull off what they were trying to do, it would be a magnificent accomplishment. The same will be true this winter. The circumstances are different, but the task is arguably as difficult.

The trade value of almost every significant Giant is down for reasons of performance, health, age and/or contract. Free agent hitters don't want to come here, as was illustrated by the trade veto of Giancarlo Stanton. Pitchers would like to pitch here, but they would also like to win a World Championship. Can the Giants convince them they have a good shot?

Trade prospects are down, and free agent prospects as well. Other than that, the situation looks pretty good.

[klaiggeb]

I can't see anyone wanting Longoria.

[klaiggeb]

Maybe someone in a small ballpark.

[rog]

Evan appears to have hit in bad luck this season, but he's nowhere the player on either side of the ball that he was when his prime ended after 2013.

[sfgdood]

Rog logic...if he likes you, you were UNlucky. If he hates you, you benefitted from favorable luck

[rog]

Rog logic...if he likes you, you were UNlucky. If he hates you, you benefitted from favorable luck


Rog -- Why do you say things like this, Randy? Let's go beyond the fact that you have little way of knowing which players have been lucky and which haven't. You've got a general idea, because you've watched the games. But you probably can't remember every at bat by every single player within one game, and remembering the entire season isn't even close to possible for the vast majority.

So, let's go with the evidence. We were talking about Evan Longoria, and I said that he appears to have hit in bad luck. Based on the way he's hit the ball, Statcast estimates he "should" be hitting .268 instead of .244 and slugging .480 instead of .429. So the evidence is there that Evan has hit in some bad luck.

OK, so now, do I like him? According to you, I must, since I'm saying he may have hit in bad luck. So what have I said about him?

. The Giants are stuck paying him a lot of money for a long time.

. He isn't nearly the hitter he was in his prime (which ended five years ago).

. His Gold Glove last season was an illusion.


Does that sound like I like the guy? I liked him a LOT in his early years, when he played at close to a Hall of Fame level. But he's simply no longer the same player.

So you don't know for sure if I like Evan or not, Randy, but pretty much everything I've posted indicates I don't.

Is he a good clubhouse guy? I'll be that he is. Is he a good player? More like average now -- and making far too much money for an average player who is likely to decline further as he ages more.

A lot of players are aging more quickly than they were. We may have gotten a false impression of aging when we watched the steroid generation.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck#ixzz5QNDIiQWR

[Islandboagie]

It's not that Rog likes or dislikes players, he uses luck to explain why he and his stat buddies were wrong about a player, or a team. They all do it, they always have.

Don't you remember that snot nosed little kid in the neighborhood that would yell "lucky" when you struck him out, hit a homerun, hit a 3-pointer, scored a touchdown..etc. Same kid would act hurt after you beat him, and he'd go running home crying. That same kid could never compete in organized sports, even though he wanted to badly. That's the childhood of a stats geek.

[sfgdood]

You're right...Rog is Ogilvie

[rog]

It's not that Rog likes or dislikes players, he uses luck to explain why he and his stat buddies were wrong about a player, or a team. They all do it, they always have.


Rog -- OK, so I show that Randy is wrong as usual when he says that I assign good luck to the players I like and bad luck to those I don't. So now Boagie comes up with my "stat buddies" using the luck factor to cover up being wrong about a player. The closest thing I have to a "stat buddy," Boagie, is Mark, with whom I discuss the fantasy league we're in together, the leagues I am in, and the leagues he is in.

We're talking about Evan Longoria here. First Randy says I am saying Evan has been lucky because I like him. I DON'T particularly like Evan, although I did at one time. But he's nowhere near the same player he was through 2013, as I pointed out when the Giants got him. Defensively, I said his Gold Glove was a fluke.

So in other words, thus far I have been pretty much right on the money about Evan. Why would I take a guy I have been right about and make him look better than the declining player I have said he is? Makes no sense at all.

More often than not, I'm right about a player. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

As for you guys, you're vainly trying to discredit me. But the thing is that I am able to separate my feelings for a player from my analysis of him.

You have been high on Kelby Tomlinson, Boagie. I love the guy too. He makes the most of his limited ability by hustling like crazy. On top of that, he's had many key hits in the late innings and has been an excellent pinch hitter.

But when he hit .303 and .292 in his first two seasons, I said he wasn't that good a hitter. Turns out he wasn't. If anything, I appreciate him more now than I did then. But he wasn't and isn't close to being a .290-.300 hitter.

At the end of July, Austin Slater was hitting .305. I said he was more like a .270 hitter and that I believed by the end of the season his average would be closer to .270 than to .305. We'll see how that turns out. Right now it's close. But since I made my statement, Austin has hit .274. I've been right on the money. Why would I say I think Austin has been lucky if I didn't think he was lucky?

So why HAS he been lucky? He hits the ball to right field a LOT, and teams haven't yet adjusted to it yet. Austin has had over 150 at bats this season. Know how many balls he has hit in the air that have been closer to third base than to second? One. ONE. When Austin hits the ball in the air, he hits it to the right side of the outfield a disproportionate amount of the time. I don't think I've ever seen it before, except maybe from a pitcher.

He spreads his grounders out much better. He's hitting .338 on them. Three thirty eight. THREE THIRTY EIGHT. Think he'll keep doing that? I've never seen a hitter hit .338 on ground balls. I doubt it will happen, but he would be an excellent candidate to play five infielders against. He doesn't hit the ball in the air to left field, so the left fielder is close to useless against him. No matter what, how likely do we think it will be that he will continue to hit .338 on ground balls?

I tried to think of a hitter who hits a lot of ground balls (as does Slater) who is a really good hitter and thus would be likely to hit well on ground balls. Jose Altuve came to mind. Like Slater, he's very fast. Jose has hit .304 on ground balls over his career. Is it reasonable to expect Austin to continue to hit 34 points higher on ground balls than Jose?

One positive about Austin is that he's hitting the ball harder this season than last. But he's not hitting it hard enough to support a .338 average on ground balls. And if he had hit Altuve's .304 on ground balls this season, his batting average would be ... .273.

Don't get me wrong. Austin's a good contract hitter. But he's got little pop, which means as teams adjust, fewer of his line drives will fall in for hits. More discouraging, his ground balls aren't going to continue to produce a .338 average.

Remember back in 2012 when I noted that Buster Posey batted an amazing .394 on fly balls en route to leading the league in hitting at .336? Buster's career average on fly balls is .236, and his average since 2012 has been just over .300 -- nowhere close to the .336.

Buster Posey was lucky on fly balls in 2012, and it propelled him to a batting championship. Austin Slater has been lucky on ground balls this season, and it has propelled him to a .286 batting average.

Austin Slater -- as much as I love his style of play -- has been lucky this season IMO. I see him as more of a .270 hitter than a .300 hitter. A batter who sees just 1% of the balls he hits wind up in the air and closer to third base than to second is going to be defended better than he has been. And he's not going to continue to hit .338 on ground balls.

I would like to see anyone's argument that he'll hit closer to .300 than to .270 in the future. As one can see from the analysis above, Austin is lucky to be hitting .286. Austin would be considered a spray hitter. But certainly not to the outfield.

By the way, in 2017 Austin his six balls in the air that were closer to third base than to second, so his hitting in the air isn't as bad over his career as it's been this season. But he needs to learn to pull the ball in the air both to keep defenses honest and to hit for more power.

What is Austin doing at the plate, Boly (and others), that has prevented him from pulling the ball in the air?

[Islandboagie]

I guess we just differ on the cause for someone hitting better than they will level out at their career average. Obviously a young hitter has the benefit of pitchers not knowing how to pitch him before the book is out on him. Or perhaps the hitter is just hot. Many times young hitters are called up when they're swinging the bat well. Does that mean they're lucky? Not in my opinion. We've seen this happen too regularly to just dismiss it as luck.

I believe you're right about questioning Tomlinson's numbers, but I also think it wasn't luck. A few years ago Tomlinson was used in a minimal role in situations that favored him, the last few years I believe Tomlinson has been thrust into more significant roles due to injuries and ineffectiveness by others. He's also been sent down way too many times. As you pointed out, Tomlinson has established himself as a guy that can play many positions and hit well off the bench. That is a valuable player to have on the bench.

[rog]

Many times young hitters are called up when they're swinging the bat well. Does that mean they're lucky? Not in my opinion.


Rog -- I agree with you fully, Boagie. If a hitter is swinging the bat well, he'll hit the ball hard and perhaps hit a lot of line drives, which Fan Graphs records. The figures I have used here to determine if a player is lucky are from Statcast. They take the launch angle and the exit velocity of the ball and give the batter credit for the number of singles, doubles, triples, home runs and outs that combination produces. If the young guy is called up and is hot, that will very likely reflect in his Statcast data.

There are other factors involved in a hitter's results, including ballpark, defensive positioning, and the fielder himself. I wouldn't consider a hit taken away by positioning to be unlucky (since the hitter's patterns help determine the positioning, costing a predictable hitter points), but hitting a deep ball hit to triples alley at AT&T that is caught rather than off the wall or completely out of another ballpark would be bad luck. Hitting a ground ball that few shortstops other than Brandon Crawford would get, only to have Brandon field it, would be bad luck.

The reason, by they way, that I consider the Giants lucky to have won three World Championships isn't based on how they hit the ball. It is based on their getting hot at the right time. Teams just can't turn it on and off, or they would be hot ALL the time.

I have used the Warriors as a comparison. The Warriors are a great team. They don't have to rely on getting hot to win. Usually all they have to do is play their normal game. As the much larger sample of the regular season showed, the Giants weren't truly the best team in those three seasons. They simply got hot at the right time. That they didn't even make the playoffs in the in-between years illustrates that they weren't truly the best team.

The Warriors have finished with exceptional regular season records -- the highest in the league except for last season when they rested their players a lot.

I think Randy follows the Warriors. How would you compare the Warriors of the past five seasons to the Giants of 2010 through 2014?

By the way, it wasn't ALL luck that the Giants won the three World Series. They were a very good team as well as getting hot.

But true dynasties don't HAVE to get hot to win. They are simply good enough to do so almost as a matter of course.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck#ixzz5QRh7Y4KF

[Islandboagie]

Basketball is different. You can buy a championship fairly easy because you can always put the ball in the best players hands. It's not nearly dependent on the entire roster performing.

That said, a baseball team winning 3 championships in 5 years is more rare than a basketball team winning multiple championships in a short period of time. So, with that in mind, what the Giants did was more impressive.

[sfgdood]

As Boagie alluded to, basketball is much easier to maintain greatness in. In baseball, there are so many more parts to the team, so many more games in the season and many more ways for teams to improve via trades and callups. You don't even need a great coach in basketball. Steve Kerr is not that good...but he assembled a better group of assistants than Mark Jackson did. You can see that when Kerr missed games due to injury, the team didn't really miss a beat and in fact were better without him at times.

In baseball we see teams get hot at different times during the season. I would argue that the best teams aren't all that much better, talent-wise, than the teams that finish as a wild card team but the team that gets hot in October will be tasting the most champagne. That has NOTHING to do with luck...it has to do with coming up clutch as a team.

The Warriors had 4 All Stars and 2 League MVPs on its roster, now it has 5 All Stars. It would have been a massive upset if the team didn't win the titles it did. 2016 was a massive upset. It will be a massive upset if there isn't a 3 peat next June.

[rog]

Basketball is different. You can buy a championship fairly easy because you can always put the ball in the best players hands. It's not nearly dependent on the entire roster performing.


Rog -- There are indeed fewer players in basketball than baseball -- obviously five to nine. The entire roster is 12 compared to 25. So the importance of one basketball player can indeed be more than the importance of one baseball player.

There is another side to this equation though. Baseball is primarily a game of pitcher against batter -- mano a mano. There is little teamwork involved.

In basketball, a team has to play a coordinated defense of five players to stop the opposition. It then needs a player to rebound, which often involves blocking out by two or three of its players. In order to score, it often needs multiple passes, multiple screens, multiple cuts and getting the ball to a shooter in the right place at the right time with the pass thrown so that it can be easily caught and shot.

Baseball has more players. Basketball has far more teamwork.

In baseball, if a pitcher can strike out all the batters, all he needs is a catcher to catch the ball. If a batter can hit four home runs, his team will score at least four runs.

In basketball, Michael Jordan can't score nearly enough points to win the game without the help and threat of his teammates. If Michael had been a good enough hitter, he could have won a game virtually by himself if he hit four home runs -- even if his other teammates didn't get a hit. In basketball, his team couldn't win without the other four players on the floor.

Think of Shohei Ohtani pitching and serving as the designated hitter. If he had a catcher to catch the ball and could strike out every batter -- plus hit a home run every time up -- he would win the game 4-0. In theory, he could win the game virtually by himself -- both offensivey and defensively. In fact, with no help from any teammate aside from a catcher to catch his pitches, he could win by a fairly decisive margin.

Michael Jordan wasn't only a great offensive player, he also was a special defensive player. But without his teammates he would have lost every single game by a landslide.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck#ixzz5QSuMR8Mf

[rog]

That said, a baseball team winning 3 championships in 5 years is more rare than a basketball team winning multiple championships in a short period of time. So, with that in mind, what the Giants did was more impressive.


Rog -- Here is a dynasty:

The early Philadephia Athletics won three World Championships in four years. Over those four years they won 389 games in a season shorter than today's. Around the middle of the 20th century, the Yankees were a dynasty, much as they were at the end of the 1930's.

In basketball, the Celtics won nine World Championships in 10 years. There have been several dynasties in hockey, more than just the Montreal Canadiens' two dynastes.

In football it's been the Cowboys of the mid 1990's and the Patriots of the early 2000's. The Steelers of the mid-to-late 1970's. The Packers of the 1960's. The Packers of the early 1930's. The Bulldogs of the early 1920's.

There have been many dynasties in sports, where teams were excellent to outstanding over a decent period. The Giants were very good -- not excellent or outstanding -- over a five-year period.

They have a LOT to be proud of, but by my criteria, they weren't a dynasty like the dozen or so other teams in the major sports who accomplished that rare achievement.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QSxQQzGG

[rog]

That has NOTHING to do with luck...it has to do with coming up clutch as a team.


Rog -- It has more to do with getting hot at the right time. If the Giants were truly that good in the clutch, they would have clutched up and at least made the postseason in 2011 and 2013.

A team isn't good enough to even make the playoffs in two out of five seasons, and they're clutch and a dynasty?

It does come down to definition. To me a dynasty is a team that was consistently great over a protracted period of time. The Giants don't fit that definition.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QT2gs9nS

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Michael Jordan wasn't only a great offensive player, he also was a special defensive player. But without his teammates he would have lost every single game by a landslide.

Boagie- And if it was just Bumgarner and Posey, no infielders or outfielders, they would have lost every game too. I don't really see your point?

The reason baseball doesn't seem team oriented is because it's the only sport where you don't have control of the ball on offense.

On defense, baseball requires just as much teamwork as any other sport. In baseball it might not seem the same offensively with teamwork, but every player in the lineup has a chance to be the hero, every player in the lineup has to take an at-bat, they can't just give their at-bat to the best hitter. Whereas in basketball the ball is normally in the hands of the best 2 or 3 players on the team. The rest of the team is just there to defend, set picks, pass or perhaps take an occasional shot if they're left wide open, anyone physically capable could fill the role.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised you said this, Rog. It's a very simple-minded idea about baseball, I expect better from you.

[rog]

Rog- Michael Jordan wasn't only a great offensive player, he also was a special defensive player. But without his teammates he would have lost every single game by a landslide.

Boagie- And if it was just Bumgarner and Posey, no infielders or outfielders, they would have lost every game too. I don't really see your point?


Rog -- If Bumgarner pitched well enough that he struck out every batter and he or Posey homered, the Giants would win the game. In the old days of the King and His Court, The King used to do just that -- striking out every batter so that all he needed was a catcher.

[rog]

On defense, baseball requires just as much teamwork as any other sport.


Rog -- You don't really believe that, do you? In the NBA there are many players who simply can't be guarded one-on-one. If a team didn't play good team defense involving all five players, it would get killed.

In baseball, players have responsibilities for various areas and very little teamwork is involved. The relay play is an exception, but even there it is a simply play those of here on this board could execute with our figurative eyese closed.

One could argue that there is more teamwork on one play in basketball or football than there is once the ball is hit in an entire baseball game.

In baseball, the battle of the pitcher and the hitter is a very difficult for both players. But there are players who stand around on defense for innings at a time. There is a little teamwork between the fielders, but almost none. There is even less teamwork between base runners.

Technically, baseball is a team game. I agree with that. But 90% of the game is pitcher versus batter. FAR less teamwork is required in baseball than the other major sports. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad. I'm simply saying it is a fact.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QksuAU00

[rog]

every player in the lineup has a chance to be the hero,


Rog -- And when he is the hero, he does it mostly alone. No one sets a pick on the fielders for him. No one blocks all the fielders.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5Qkv2GzKX

[rog]

Whereas in basketball the ball is normally in the hands of the best 2 or 3 players on the team. The rest of the team is just there to defend, set picks, pass or perhaps take an occasional shot if they're left wide open, anyone physically capable could fill the role.


Rog -- Sorry, Boagie. I don't think you understand the teamwork involved in baketball. Watch even a high school game, and you will see that isn't the case.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QkvVTaFk

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- If Bumgarner pitched well enough that he struck out every batter and he or Posey homered, the Giants would win.

Boagie- You're seriously using this as an argument? This is no more unrealistic than Michael Jordan beating a team of 5 players by himself.

Let's look at it this way, if you put Michael Jordan in his prime on a high school basketball team, they are going undefeated, no doubt about it. If you throw Posey on a high school baseball team, they might not win every game. Posey would have monster numbers, but the rest of the team could stink, and the pitchers could be awful.

With Jordan in a high school game, he's taking the ball down the court every time. He's taking more shots than anyone else, the only passes he would make is to someone wide open or if he feels like he wants to get others involved. Otherwise, he's scoring somewhere between 50 and 100 per game and completely dominating the game by himself. In other words, there's no f*ing way Jordan's team is going to lose.

Posey gets 4 or so at-bats, even if he homers every time up, his team is still very dependent on what the pitchers do. Not to mention, Posey would likely be walked almost every time. Which is just more evidence supporting my claim.

Please Rog, I understand your point of set plays, and so on...how that outwardly shows more "teamwork." But baseball relies far more heavily on a full roster effort, which was the point in the first place. Can you for once just admit you were wrong?

[rog]

By the way, a good part of why I don't consider the Giants to have been a dynasty it the two years they weren't even good enough to make the playoffs. They weren't good enough to be in the top quarter of the teams.

Ever heard of the Cardinals' dynasty from 1942 through 1946? I hadn't. But they were similar to the Giants in that they won every even year. How did they fare in the in-between seasons? In 1943 they went 105-49 but lost the World Series. In 1945 they finished second with a 95-59. In the two seasons the Cardinals DIDN'T win, they went 200-108

In the two seasons the Giants didn't win it all, they went 160-164. Even though they played 16 more games (162 game schedule vs. 154 game schedule), the Cardinals won 40 more games. In fact, the best record the Giants had in the three years they played in the World Series, they went 94-68. In their BEST season while winning the World Series, the Giants didn't win as many as the Cardinals did in their WORST season of the five. And the Giants had eight more games to play than the Cardinals.

So a century from now, the Giants may not be considered any more a dynasty than the 1942-1946 Cardinals. And if one looks closely, he will see that the Cards were closer to being a dynasty than the Giants.

Again, it really comes down to definition. Mine is tough that most here. I guess having the Yankees win not simply three of five World Championships but a perfect five will do that.

One can argue that the Giants had to win 11 games whereas those Yankees teams had to win only four. That's a good argument But in order to even MAKE the postseason, a team had to be the best of the eight teams in its league. The Giants had to be only one of the top four among 15 to make the playoffs. In 2014 they had to be only one of the top five.

[sfgdood]

Whereas in basketball the ball is normally in the hands of the best 2 or 3 players on the team. The rest of the team is just there to defend, set picks, pass or perhaps take an occasional shot if they're left wide open, anyone physically capable could fill the role.


Rog -- Sorry, Boagie. I don't think you understand the teamwork involved in baketball. Watch even a high school game, and you will see that isn't the case.

Dood - you may be right about HS basketball but Boagie is correctamundo about the way NBA hoops is played

[rog]

Rog -- If Bumgarner pitched well enough that he struck out every batter and he or Posey homered, the Giants would win.

Boagie- You're seriously using this as an argument? This is no more unrealistic than Michael Jordan beating a team of 5 players by himself.


Rog -- I don't think either will happen anytime soon, but we are closer to a pitcher striking out 27 batters and he or the catcher hitting a home run or otherwise scoring a run than we are to having Michael Jordan grab every rebound, dribble through and then defend a five-man team and grab every rebound.

Yogi said something to the effect that baseball is 90% half-mental. Not sure about that one, but it may be close to 90% half pitcher vs. batter.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck#ixzz5QlCCDGJE

[rog]

Please Rog, I understand your point of set plays, and so on...how that outwardly shows more "teamwork."


Rog -- It can also be using a philosophy of plays rather than set ones.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QlDMntrA

[rog]

But baseball relies far more heavily on a full roster effort


Rog -- That's probably true, although the 1974-1975 Warriors won it all while becoming the first team to rotate 11 of its 12 roster players.

But when the roster is used more in baseball, it is still mostly pitcher vs. batter.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4814/zach-rymer-heck?page=1#ixzz5QlDcmfFd

[rog]

Regarding teamwork, let's look at how a team practices. In baseball, teams usually work on hitting, pitching and fielding. Most of the drills involve a very small number of players.

Basketball and football practice often if not usually involves players playing together as well as against each other, with a high number of players involved relative to the number of players on the court of field.

[rog]

I'm thinking Randy likely played multiple sports. Did you spend as much time practicing teamwork in baseball as you did in football and basketball. Go out and watch the local high school teams practice in each sport. I think just about everyone will get the picture.