Statistics & You

[CubColtPacer]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

[Amazing_Grace]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better.

[CubColtPacer]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better.

 

That's true, and is the weight that Sully is saying-it's not nearly as large as is sometimes reported (3 to 1, 4 to 1?-that's just crazy-the numbers do not indicate that OBP is nearly that important) but there should be a small weight added to OBP to make OPS even more predictive.

[Amazing_Grace]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Thank you, and thanks for the correction. Since OBP is more predictive than SLG, it would suggest that some OPS formula that somehow places more value on OBP would possibly be even better.

 

That's true, and is the weight that Sully is saying-it's not nearly as large as is sometimes reported (3 to 1, 4 to 1?-that's just crazy-the numbers do not indicate that OBP is nearly that important) but there should be a small weight added to OBP to make OPS even more predictive.

 

It actually should be testable. You simply take OBP times X + SLG, varying X, and see how predictive the stat is to runs scored. At some point, the predictive value will max out, and will start to go down. When it does, you've found the factor that OBP should be multiplied times in a new OPS statistic. Of course, I'm not nearly good enough at math to actually do that... :lol:

[UK1679666180]

For batters, I like a standard AVG/OBP/SLG line - I think OPS is overly used, and an inaccurate representation of a players' worth, as SLG is overrepresented in the overall stat (although OPS+ is very useful).

 

UK has a very useful method for weighting OPS toward OBP, i can't remember what the exact weight is, though.

 

Usually, you'll see ((1.6*OBP)+SLG) to get an adjusted value. I forget where it was mentioned but someone had mentioned OBP was undervaled 3 times its present value, which is nuts.

 

Every stat has value, where and when to apply it adds less or more value. The more you know, the better off you'll be, as it's more like a puzzle and each stat is a piece of that puzzle rather than a beauty competition looking for the most attractive stat.

 

I try and look for both sides of the equation, not only analyzing how well a player has done as far as his numbers, but what does he do physically that got him to that point.

[Tracer Bullet]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Can someone (CCP or someone else) explain why the gap would be getting wider? Why would OBP be getting less predictive and OPS more predictive over the years?

[Mephistopheles]

1) Do you prefer traditional statistics (AVG, RBI, ERA) or newer statistics (OBP, SLG, ERA+)? Why?

 

No, because they're flawed.

 

1a) If you prefer traditional statistics, do the newer statistics draw your interest? If not, why?

 

Not Applicable

 

2) What particular statistics are you comfortable with using and interpreting?

 

Anything from WSAB, EqA, WARP3, VORP, MORP to UZR, LD% and PrOPS

 

3) What particular statistics might as well be a completely different language to you?

 

Um, nothing really.

[BigbadB]

I'm OBP, SLG, OPS, WHIP, ERA+ oriented.

 

OBP is probably my favorite stat. I like guys who get on base. But, if there are two guys with comparable OBP, I favor the guy with the better SLG.

 

I don't completely discount the traditional stats. I am still a fan of AVG. I think a decent SLG/high AVG guy is an ideal #6 hitter in a line up. For example, Moises Alou or Nomar Garciaparra would be ideal #6 hitters when constructing my line up. I want guys who can drive in the best OBP guys in the line up, which are typically your middle of the order power hitters. Those guys hit for a respectable average, and those hits will drive in runs where a walk wouldn't be beneficial, especially with the bottom half of the order coming to the plate.

[soccer10k]

I like newer stats, despite having never, ever heard of them before coming to this site 5 or so years ago.

 

So you were here a year before the site was created? Interesting. :D

 

But in regards to the topic, I prefer some of the newer stats but that is mostly offensively (OBP, SLG, OPS) but am figuring out some of the pitching stats. The more complicated (in my mind) stats like VORP and WARP (especially this one) might as well be in a foreign language as far as how they are calculated. I understand what VORP means though. I'm starting to understand OPS+ and ERA+ though. When people start talking about fielding metrics, I just skip over that conversation because I have no idea what they're talking about.

[TruffleShuffle]

I like the newer stats. To me, OBP is the single greatest measurement of a hitter's ability because it records the outcome of the most important part of the game, the individual battle between hitter and pitcher. OBP basically is how often, as a hitter, you win that battle.

 

I agree, and if I wanted to know a player's value and could pick only one of the Baseball Encyclopedia stats to look at, I'd look at OBP. But at the same time, Nick Johnson was 4th in the NL with a .428 OBP, and Ryan Howard was 5th, at .425. But obviously Howard was far more productive.

 

That's why I don't understand why some people have such a problem with things like VORP or WARP3. Yeah, they might not familiar to you, but no single traditional stat captures a player's value as fully as those two. If you just take a little time to learn what they mean, you gain a lot of knowledge.

[Backtobanks]

Hmm, this sounds like a winner to me.

 

1) If I had to pick one of each pair, I'd pick OBP, SLG, and ERA. I think AVG is an important stat to look also with OBP, and I think ERA+ is a good stat to look at, but I'm taking ERA for it's flexibility (ERA can be used inside of a game, during a season, or after a season-ERA+ is more accurate but has less times where it can be calculated and used).

 

1a)I do like several traditional statistics (although not nearly all of them), and yes, the newer statistics do interest me. I'm all for learning as much as I can about the game, and so anytime that I can find stats that refine the understanding of the game (OBP, SLG, OPS for example) I think that's a great thing. I also am very interested in the continuing research into several new stats that I don't put much stock in right now (fielding metrics for example) but that I know is continually improving and will be the future of analyzing those fields.

 

2)Hmmm-I use OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, ERA+, K/BB ratio, K/9, BB/9, and WHIP on a regular basis. There are many other stats that I understand and put pretty good value in but don't regularly use like ISOD, VORP, and other things like that, but I am always comparing things like VORP to what I think the stat would say about the player (if I have enough knowledge on the subject, like if it's my team). I also understand defensive stats like FRAA, even if I look at them with skepticism because of many aberrant numbers.

 

3) Most of the ones I don't know very well are only because I have only heard them a couple times, and so I can't remember their initials. However, there are a few stats out there that do sound like a different language, although I hope I can change that over time.

 

Your post was the closest to my feelings on the subject. I do think many people go overboard with some of these statistics. I'm a firm believer in just watching and enjoying the games and figuring out the "best" players by watching instead of overanalyzing statistics. I do enjoy reading and comparing statistics, but some people go completely overboard.

[UK1679666180]

There are plenty of statistics that show that Pujols is the best hitter in the game, I want to know what he does that makes him that way.

 

FWIW, he has the best balance, great vision acuity, his bat speed is great and his bat angle is such that it stays in the zone longer than most and hits line drive HRs rather than higher arcs like Dunn such that he maintains high avg./low Ks. Of course, his work ethic and intelligence at the plate are extremely high as well.

[NewUserName]

The Murray Chass thread got me thinking about something. While the majority of people on this board are comfortable with stats and are able to explain them, it seems like some people on this board are on completely different wavelengths when it comes to interpreting and understanding these statistics.

 

So, for example, I can calculate and explain some things like OBP, SLG, OPS, K/9, BB/9, IsoD, IsoP, and so on. I have a basic understanding of things like VORP, OPS+, EqA, and ERA+. For the life of me, I can't make heads or tails of WARP and advanced fielding metrics. I'd really like to learn more about them, don't get me wrong, but my current knowledge of them is not very good.

 

Getting down to the point of this thread, I have a few questions for all of you. I'm trying to get a better understanding of the breakdown of the people on this board when it comes to their opinions regarding statistics.

 

1) Do you prefer traditional statistics (AVG, RBI, ERA) or newer statistics (OBP, SLG, ERA+)? Why?

 

1a) If you prefer traditional statistics, do the newer statistics draw your interest? If not, why?

 

2) What particular statistics are you comfortable with using and interpreting?

 

3) What particular statistics might as well be a completely different language to you?

 

Perhaps we can use this thread to understand more about stats. That's my hope, at least. :D

 

 

I was a Bill James reader back in the early 80s. I have not totally embraced all of the newer stats though. I like OPS, OBP and WHIP. All of these stats are still rather simple to figure and I can easily explain them to people who have no idea what they mean. Some of the more advanced ones are not necessarly beyond me but they are hard to explain to not knowledgeable people so I dont use them most of the time.

 

Maybe this is just because I am older but I do believe there is a part of baseball that stats do not measure. I dont know if it is "Clutch" or "Baseball Sense" or being a "Heady Ballplayer". I just think that a player like Pete Rose has more value than stats can measure(I dont mean gambling profits). I dont know what this means to overall team performance but I have played baseball, softball, football, basketball and hockey with guys like that and they make the whole team better.

[BigbadB]

That's why I don't understand why some people have such a problem with things like VORP or WARP3. Yeah, they might not familiar to you, but no single traditional stat captures a player's value as fully as those two. If you just take a little time to learn what they mean, you gain a lot of knowledge.

 

I'm sure stats like that have their value, but I don't find value in something I have to look up to remember how it's calculated, or remember where I have to go to look it up. And if there is a mathematical equation to it, forget it. I really don't want to know that one. I love baseball as much as the next guy, but I really don't feel like mixing math with baseball.

 

I can respect those people who value those stats, and the even more obscure ones. However, it's more than I really feel is necessary to place a value on a particular player.

 

I think I can get a good enough picture of the value of a player based on OPS, OBP, SLG, OPS+, ERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9, ERA+, etc. All stats that can be easily found at the sites I frequent the most for stats.

 

I'll always read articles that discuss these newer saber stats. I am interested. But, it's too much effort for me to apply them as often as I apply OBP, etc...

[Mephistopheles]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Can someone (CCP or someone else) explain why the gap would be getting wider? Why would OBP be getting less predictive and OPS more predictive over the years?

 

I can explain this. There are several reasons. The chart you guys looked at should be thrown down the drain. It's only four seasons looking at fourteen teams each season. To jump to any correlation conclusions with n=14 for 4 sets is a bit premature.

 

Of course you guys are right, the relative correlation coefficients have indeed been spacing out a bit. There are reasons for this, but here's the graph since 1900 which each season (both leagues, with the exception of 1900).

 

 

 

Generally speaking the standard deviation for the league in OBP and OPS have both gone down over the last one hundred years, but it's been more vital for OBP as it has gone down quicker. The standard deviation is included in the correlation coefficient. Secondly, comparing the change in this to the change in the standard deviation of OPS isn't smart. You should use SLG, because slugging has a much higher rate and over the last thirty seasons it has obviously had a greater impact on scoring runs. So it's driven out some of the correlation so to speak for OBP.

 

eh i dont mean SLG as much as I mean IsoP.

 

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6530/charts1yx2.gif

[A New Era]

OBP + SLG = OPS for offense

 

and

 

ERA + WHIP for pitching. .

[CubColtPacer]

Ok, here is Tim's article on it from a couple years back:

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Articles/ArticleText.php?ArticleID=47

 

OPS was easily the most predictive, and from my looks at the last couple years of statistics, that gap is just getting wider.

 

Can someone (CCP or someone else) explain why the gap would be getting wider? Why would OBP be getting less predictive and OPS more predictive over the years?

 

I can explain this. There are several reasons. The chart you guys looked at should be thrown down the drain. It's only four seasons looking at fourteen teams each season. To jump to any correlation conclusions with n=14 for 4 sets is a bit premature.

 

Of course you guys are right, the relative correlation coefficients have indeed been spacing out a bit. There are reasons for this, but here's the graph since 1900 which each season (both leagues, with the exception of 1900).

 

 

 

Generally speaking the standard deviation for the league in OBP and OPS have both gone down over the last one hundred years, but it's been more vital for OBP as it has gone down quicker. The standard deviation is included in the correlation coefficient. Secondly, comparing the change in this to the change in the standard deviation of OPS isn't smart. You should use SLG, because slugging has a much higher rate and over the last thirty seasons it has obviously had a greater impact on scoring runs. So it's driven out some of the correlation so to speak for OBP.

 

eh i dont mean SLG as much as I mean IsoP.

 

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6530/charts1yx2.gif

 

Thanks for the explanation. I actually used more stats that were in the chart (that was Tim's work) but my research had only gone back about 10 years or so over all of the major leagues-so I'm very happy that you posted that, because it was much more succinct that anything I would have done.

[Amazing_Grace]

I like the newer stats. To me, OBP is the single greatest measurement of a hitter's ability because it records the outcome of the most important part of the game, the individual battle between hitter and pitcher. OBP basically is how often, as a hitter, you win that battle.

 

I agree, and if I wanted to know a player's value and could pick only one of the Baseball Encyclopedia stats to look at, I'd look at OBP. But at the same time, Nick Johnson was 4th in the NL with a .428 OBP, and Ryan Howard was 5th, at .425. But obviously Howard was far more productive.

 

That's why I don't understand why some people have such a problem with things like VORP or WARP3. Yeah, they might not familiar to you, but no single traditional stat captures a player's value as fully as those two. If you just take a little time to learn what they mean, you gain a lot of knowledge.

 

Do you have a link to a site that explains them and/or could you explain them here? I don't have any problem with VORP or WARP3, I've just never had them explained and the meaning of them isn't really all that clear to me.

 

Also, OBP may be the most important stat, but it's not the only stat. Like I said in my original post, you also have to look at things like SLG also.

[bhogg]

when I can't find my dusty dice, I choose to go with gut feel and hunches.

[UK1679666180]

 

Do you have a link to a site that explains them and/or could you explain them here? I don't have any problem with VORP or WARP3, I've just never had them explained and the meaning of them isn't really all that clear to me.

 

Also, OBP may be the most important stat, but it's not the only stat. Like I said in my original post, you also have to look at things like SLG also.

 

 

WARP-3

Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season. It should be noted that a team which is at replacement level in all three of batting, pitching, and fielding will be an extraordinarily bad team, on the order of 20-25 wins in a 162-game season.

 

WARP is also listed on a player's PECOTA card. The PECOTA WARP listing is designed to correspond to WARP-1, not WARP-2 or WARP-3.

WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 6.2 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 12.8 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 18.3.

 

For most hitters, at least, it is just that simple. Pitchers are treated differently, as we not only look at season length, but the typical number of innings thrown by a top starting pitcher that year (defined by the average IP of the top five in IP). We find it hard to argue that pitchers throwing 300 or more innings a year are suffering some sort of discrimination in the standings due to having shortened seasons. This why Walter Johnson has almost no adjustment between WARP-2 and WARP-3, while his contemporaries Cobb, Speaker, and Collins all gain around 7 or 8 wins.

 

VORP

Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player's defense.

[Amazing_Grace]

 

Do you have a link to a site that explains them and/or could you explain them here? I don't have any problem with VORP or WARP3, I've just never had them explained and the meaning of them isn't really all that clear to me.

 

Also, OBP may be the most important stat, but it's not the only stat. Like I said in my original post, you also have to look at things like SLG also.

 

 

WARP-3

Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season. It should be noted that a team which is at replacement level in all three of batting, pitching, and fielding will be an extraordinarily bad team, on the order of 20-25 wins in a 162-game season.

 

WARP is also listed on a player's PECOTA card. The PECOTA WARP listing is designed to correspond to WARP-1, not WARP-2 or WARP-3.

WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 6.2 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 12.8 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 18.3.

 

For most hitters, at least, it is just that simple. Pitchers are treated differently, as we not only look at season length, but the typical number of innings thrown by a top starting pitcher that year (defined by the average IP of the top five in IP). We find it hard to argue that pitchers throwing 300 or more innings a year are suffering some sort of discrimination in the standings due to having shortened seasons. This why Walter Johnson has almost no adjustment between WARP-2 and WARP-3, while his contemporaries Cobb, Speaker, and Collins all gain around 7 or 8 wins.

 

VORP

Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player's defense.

 

Ok, but who is this replacement player anyway? Is he related to "player to be named later?" :lol:

 

Or, to phrase my question in a serious way, how is the replacement level production determined? Do these stats take salaries into account? How are they calculated mathematically?

[UK1679666180]

I'm sure they'd give you a brief explanation, but I doubt they'd give the exact formula for obvious reasons.

 

Salaries don't factor.

 

I use as many stats as poss., if I want the best offensive stat I use XR. I don't have one for pitching, but use many stats (WHIP, HR/9, PRAA).

[Amazing_Grace]

I'm sure they'd give you a brief explanation, but I doubt they'd give the exact formula for obvious reasons.

 

Salaries don't factor.

 

I use as many stats as poss., if I want the best offensive stat I use XR. I don't have one for pitching, but use many stats (WHIP, HR/9, PRAA).

 

Ahhh, so the formulas are kept a trade secret then?

[UK1679666180]

If it's part of the BP handbook or the premium webpage, I doubt they would.

 

I can't really fault them, just that someone could paint a pretty good picture using avail. data w/out having to pay.

[Mephistopheles]

This is probably going to be more than you ever wanted to know about RP level, but here goes nothing,

 

Replacement level differs by each stat. Even though VORP and WARP stand for value over replacement player and wins over replacement player, the replacement player is not the same in each statistic.

 

VORP is based off of marginal value lineup rate (MLVr). MLVr is an extension of runs created but uses team runs created and calculates the change in OBP, SLG, SB and CS (and a few other small things) when the player is insterted in the lineup, compared to just an average player. There are three key things to notice here. First, it's how many runs his OBP and SLG etc add to a league average lineup and it's the difference in runs over a league average player. Secondly, MLVr is not runs added over a player at your position and finally MLVr is none other than runs added per game played.

 

Then MLVr is of course weighted for park, league, etc. Then it is converted to PMLVr which is runs per game added over an average hitter at the position played. Then it's converted to VORPr which is runs per game over a replacement level player at the players' position. A replacement level is described as about 70 points of OPS (35 each for SLG and OBP) lower than a league average player at that position. Finally VORPr is multiplied by games (which is actually figured out using PA% not games, duh) to find VORP. Of course they may physically calculate the differences in a different order, addition and subtraction are of course associative.

 

In practice VORP's replacement level player is basically a AAA player - which is justified by the concept of replacement player which should be defined something like: A player who is freely available at the position for a low cost.

 

WARP is quite a ways different. First, it's calculated based off of Equivalent Average, which put in simple terms is based roughly on total bases per plate appearance. Where total bases include SBs. It's a bit different, but for an informal definition that's fine. It's then scaled and adjusted for play into EqA on a scale of .260. This stuff is on their site I believe (it was like 2 years ago). I can go deeper if you want into how and the methodology behind it. EqA's scale is basically the same as BA. .260 is always average. .300 is good, .200 is bad and .400 is a top fifteen offense season.

 

WARP basically has three different components: BRAR, FRAR and PRAR. BRAR is batting runs over a replacement level hitter. BRAR is calculated the same for EVERY position, pitchers included. This actually causes AL pitchers to have higher WARPs than their NL counterpart because most pitcher's EqA's are well below a RP level hitter's level. A replacement level hitter has an EqA of .230 by definition. EqA when it's in its adjusted state is basically value per out. BRAR is calculated by 5*Outs*(EqA^2.5-.230^2.5). It's not too tough.

 

FRAR and PRAR are a lot different. As I said there's no position adjustement for BRAR. Their methodology runs that all hitters are hitters and should be compared to all hitters. The value so to speak of doing it at a harder position is factored in FRAR. The starting runs over a replacement player varies with position. It's based off of the James Defensive Spectrum: C, SS, 2B, CF, 3B, CO, 1B, DH. Notice there's nothing for pitchers. This is probably wrong. I hate WARP for pitchers. It's useless, but as bad as it has been for them, it gets worse. The runs per 162 games are set at 36, 32, 29, 24, 22, 14, 0 if my memory doesn't fail me. It's on their site somewhere. Then for each player they use Rate2 for the actual defensive component. Rate2 is something I am not familiar with the actual calculations other than that I know it's based off box scores and is easily one of the more terrible "new age" baseball defensive stats. Anyways Rate2 is based off 100 being average and is scaled to 100 games. If a player has a 109 Rate2 and plays 162 adjusted games at catcher (this is based on innings, not games played) then he's going to have a FRAR of 51.

 

PRAR is pitching runs over a replacement pitcher, where a replacement pitcher's ERA is roughly 6.10 in a league average park (think Jason Marquis and what we got out of our 4-5 spots last year). However, PRAR has a lot of more adjustments. First the ERA/RA used is based off of NRA, not RA/ERA. To compute this there's an adjustment for the team's defense and the resulting RA is scaled to have the same winning power against average 4.50 R/G or RA which ever you want to call it. You can find this using your favorite pythagorean win formula. So for NRA, league average is 4.50. Then it's (6.10-NRA)*XIP. What's XIP? It's based of IP for the player, but this is another part of the formula I hate. They try to synthetically inject leverage into the WARP calculations for pitchers (but not for hitters hypocrites). This is done by redistributing innings pitched based on things like Ws, Ls and SVs. I don't know if they include holds or not. So yes, having an extra loss can actually improve your EqA. They formulized this somewhere on their site, but when I tried to do what they did it never worked for me, but some of the things they do made me laugh. It's really absurd. Anyways once you have your XIP, PRAR is pretty fair.

 

Finally to compute WARP we have to add all of PRAR, BRAR and FRAR into one RAR stat, let's just call it total runs over replacement player (TRAR idk what, if anything, they call it). Someone earlier in this thread (or another?) mentioned that Rs --> Ws is roughly 10 per. While that's true, WARP takes it a step further. There's a diminishing marginal runs per win effect. So each successive run added is not worth as much as the one previous. WARP for ALL players is wins added starting at a replacement level team. This team is not as good as the 2003 Tigers. Think the immortal Cleveland Spiders. A RP team for WARP is good for about 20 wins. Yeah that's low. Anyways so the WARP column you see is not a good indicator of how many wins the player added, so at the point, what's the point? No pun intended.

 

In practice a replacement level player for WARP is about a AA player. A lot of people think this is way too low. And they're probably right.

 

Wow, that was long. I hope this clears it up and doesn't confuse you even more.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Mephistopheles