Txball's comments encouraged me to revisit WAR, particularly:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/war/

First, my hypothesis that scarcity of position should affect the price of WAR is basically wrong, as WAR is adjusted by position. Second, while Fangraphs uses the FA market as the metric for valuing WAR, it did so much more comprehensively than I did, using the entire FA class in 2008. If one inflates this number to the present (eyeballing the historical values presented by Fangraphs looks like the price increases about 10% per year) WAR should be approaching $6mm today.

My first question still remains: do higher payroll teams pay more for WAR? On reflection the answer will require a comparison of free agent spending by higher salary and/or revenue teams with lower salary/revenue teams. The second issue, the variability of FA WAR pricing is still somewhat of a mystery to me; why do the Reyes' of the world receive high salaries despite relatively low WAR production? Part of this may be inefficiencies in the buyers. There are only 30 front offices and scouting systems and some may be better than others in predicting future performance and rigorously following their respective pricing systems. I would trade MY to Tampa Bay for whoever is finding and developing pitchers and eat MY's salary, to boot.

Had a thought on a trade involving Cliff Lee that might make sense for both the Phillies and Rangers. Growing up in Philly and now being in Austin, I follow both teams and have a non biased view of how a deal could help both teams. I also have a premise that the Rangers would not have interest in giving up talent if Lee came at his current salary base. They could have signed him in that range 2 yrs ago and chose not to, due to the high risk, and Lee's performance since has not shown that their opinion was wrong. However there are now 2 less years on the contract and when you compare his expected performance to the return on Greinke, the Rangers would have interest if Lee's cost base was a bit lower.

The Phillies like Michael Young, need help at 3B and backup at 2B. Young fits their clubhouse culture and adds a right handed bat to a predominantly left handed lineup. Charlie Manuel is a great hitting coach and likely thinks he could help Young get back some of the punch missing from his bat.

Thinking Lee, Bastardo and Sebastian Vallle for Young, Olt, Perez, and Gentry. Rangers may need to kick in Beltre also, but no money. Idea is that the Phillies would be willing to cover Miichael Young's contract, as it would provide the Rangers the discount they would need to trade for Lee, and it provides a good way to move Michael Young along to a quality team where he start and possibly get back to the post season. The Rangers would be giving up two of their top prospects, but get back a young catcher who can help them in 2013 and a nice leftie reliever. Phils get the CF'er they need, fill 3B with a power player for many years and a young starter with great upside. The money they save from not having to over pay for Upton or Bourn could go for Lohse or another starter to help them for the next couple of years. All seems to make sense.

Primi, thanks for the answer but you didn't need to reply to me. I was just trying to derail the conversation by pretending not to understand David's points and inserting my own typical nastiness into the mix. Carry on.

"Thinking Lee, Bastardo and Sebastian Vallle for Young, Olt, Perez, and Gentry."

I think Lee won't bring nearly that much in trade. If you simply took him for nothing, you're getting his years 34-37 at a cost of about $26M a year. And I don't think the Rangers would want to add the current version of Lee - - with the likelihood that Father Time may lessen his ability from where it now stands - - at that price. Philly has gotten the two best years out of that contract, and paid only $32M total for them, and what remains is the high priced years that are likely to be nasty ones to team payroll.

I'd be tempted if you made it a simple Lee-for-Young deal, because of the value I believe there'd be in removing the Young-Washington codependency from the clubhouse. In that one, you can probably postulate that Young is worth $2M or so, with the other $14M in salary defraying the cost of Lee's salary. That would make Lee a net cost to the Rangers of 4 yrs/$88M, and then the question is whether he's going to be able to provide on-field value worth $22M a season at ages 34, 35, 36, and 37. I certainly wouldn't offer any more than that for Lee's services, and I suspect that both Texas and Philly would think they were getting a bad deal and would pass.

If I'm going to trade for an over-33 veteran pitcher, I think R A Dickey is the guy most worth spending assets to get.

@bbjunkie: which Beltre? Engel? Surely you aren't suggesting they include Adrian in such a deal, are you?

I think Lee won't bring nearly that much in trade. If you simply took him for nothing, you're getting his years 34-37 at a cost of about $26M a year. And I don't think the Rangers would want to add the current version of Lee.

I'd be tempted if you made it a simple Lee-for-Young deal, because of the value I believe there'd be in removing the Young-Washington codependency from the clubhouse.

Sorry, I'm trying to stop LOLing from these two comments.

Listen, I don't want Cliff Lee for the healthy price tag he brings with him, but let's not pretend he's some worthless bundle of garbage in the same class as Michael Young. Lee was basically a 5-win pitcher in 2012, which is wild, because his offense only got him 6 pitching wins all season! That shit CRAY.

But I mean, trying to explain WAR (5 wins x $4.5M = $22.5M in value; 2012 salary: $21.5M) to someone who doesn't understand it but claims that it's not an effective tool is kind of pointless.

In a hypothetical never-gonna-happen exchange of Lee for Young, the Phillies would be saving themselves $9M and losing between 5-6 wins. But hey! WAR means nothing! Don't listen to primi or Txball!

thinking Engel, certainly not Andre. Also did not realize Lee's deal was that back loaded, I was thinking the Rangers would net out around $18M per year for him. My opinion is the Rangers will not likely get Greinke, as they will need to out bid both the Angels and Dodgers, so his price may end up close to $24-25M/year for 6 years. Therefore, I thought the Lee deal would look good compared to that. But, David did more home work than I did and at a net $22M/yr, a straight up swap is the only thing that would make sense and I also doubt either team would go for it. Still, the Phils are probably the best landing spot for Young if the Rangers can work something out.

Speaking of guys without very much trade value, Engel Beltre is certainly one of them. He's become a more toolsy version of Julio Borbon, two simpleton bats who hit a lot of singles, who don't draw many walks. That's the problem there is with little guys who can't get on base very much, they eventually turn into Juan Pierre.

As for the Lee trade scenario, he stands to make $25M in all of '13, '14 and '15, with a $27.5M option that comes with a monumental $12.5M buyout if he meets some innings pitched requirements. In a parallel universe, if the Rangers acquired him and didn't pick up his option, that would be an $87.5M commitment. Shedding Michael Young's contract would be nice in the interim, but even at that you're looking at a $71.5M investment for a guy pitching in the twilight of his career.

Because of Lee's dominance despite lacking a first-rate fastball, I would still feel comfortable marking him down for 4.3-4.8 fWAR in 2013, 4.0-4.5 fWAR in 2014 and between 3.5 and 4.0 wins in 2015. But even at that production, he wouldn't satisfy his contract. Maybe if the Phillies tossed in about $20M in 2014 and 2015 it would be worth it, but I'd just assume go down the cheap route and plug in one of our league minimum guys like Grimm or Ross and net the 2.0 wins or so they'd give us.

Eric/TxBall/Whatever-you-want -to-call-yourself-today, I'm not saying Lee and Young are equivalent players by any means. But after taking your customary boorish, nitpicking, non-sequiturish shots at me, you come to the same conclusion as I do about the money. Fancy that!

The issue isn't Lee's effectiveness in 2012, but in 2013-17, which is what the net $88M would pay for. Still, clearly there is a salary for Lee that would be worth paying, and sending Young to Philly would be a way to reduce the total net salary obligation you'd have in Lee from $102M to $88M (assuming Young can justify about $2M of value for a single year) without Philly simply sending cash or paying part of Lee's salary.

At a net of $88M in obligation changing teams, perhaps Philly would be quite open to freeing up the salary, while Texas might be willing to accept it. If Philly wanted to move Lee's salary and Lee, but get back talent, they'd have to offer way more salary relief in some fashion.

Txball and eric are not the same person.

@bbjunkie: Yes, the Rangers are probably the 3rd favorite to sign Greinke right now, but it's a distant 3rd. But of course, that doesn't really matter, because the ever-elusive "mystery team" comes out of nowhere often enough. Really, though, I think most of our feasible (i.e. not dreaming) offseason plans entail what to do assuming the Rangers don't get Greinke, because it's pretty unlikely, between the Guggenheim family's bottomless pockets and Arte Moreno's ever-so-costly quest to have both good offense and pitching in the same year. The Rangers probably have the money to go toe-to-toe with either team long enough to drive Greinke's price way out of the range it should be in, but I don't think they will go that high. If Greinke goes for over $150m (it's possible), I'm pretty sure it won't be the Rangers paying it.

I do wonder if either team would swap Lee for Young, whether or not a little money changes hands. I'm not sure who hangs up first. I don't think it matters, though, because I don't think it happens.

I can't believe we are discussing MY for Lee. Only in the most gratuitous assumptions does MY have any value, and whatever charitable misconceptions lie in an honest comparison between the two evaporate when you move MY to the NL. Lee is an excellent pitcher but he turned down Texas once before, is getting to the ragged edges of a baseball career, and is owed what may be one of the very top salary structures of any pitcher in baseball. My joke about trading MY for a Rays pitching scout makes more sense.

When all the holiday beer, wine, booze and acid has worn off, and we find the ceiling we thought we floated against is a floor beneath the interior photo of the Beggar's Banquet jacket, the Rangers' pickle is still going to be landing a TORP to pitch along side of Yu to help get to, and more importantly through, the playoffs, and a batter or collection of batters to ameliorate the offense losses from losing Josh, possibly losing Napoli, and the apparent continuing regression of Cruz. Those are two big deals. Yes, Lee is certainly a TORP that satisfies the first need. But last summer Amaro wanted a top 50 prospect for Lee without any attendant salary relief. If you are going to offer 25mm a year for a TORP, first try throwing it at Greinke. As durable as Lee has been he is still getting older, and older is not a good prognosticating factor for a physical sport like baseball.

I liked the Stanton ideas. He is one of the few baseball players living who can possibly fill Hamilton's shoes. Unfortunately, there are whispers that Selig finally received all the photos and videos acquired by Loria and in now prepared to be a real commissioner and close the barn door on Stanton trades in order to ensure the integrity of Miami baseball. This is sad because the Rangers are one a small handful of teams with the prospects available to make a fair deal for Stanton.

So Lee is old with a sky high salary and Stanton is hostage in Florida. Moving on I see offensive options in Justin Upton, Alex Gordon, and Billy Butler. The last two are tough. KC apparently wants a major league ready pitcher, the very place on the diamond the Rangers also seek. I still hold out hope for Upton, but it is a hope that AZ's GM learns negotiating is a skill best developed in moderation, as opposed to talking about anything and everything, which is a character trait of people who generally are not worth listening to. This is a sad and frustrating situation as the Rangers and AZ appear to match up well.

Texas may also match up well with the Rays. I saw a Fangraphs headline today that Keith Ohlman (sic?) believes the latest Marlins move may prevent TB's already difficult task of getting a stadium that may actually give them a measureable probability of making some money and keeping some stars. If this is part of the fallout, then suddenly Price and Shields supplant Hellickson and plus someone else in the front of their selling preferences. If that is the case I hope the Rangers take their best shot for one of these two and the other half dozen potential TORPs and aces crowding the Rays' pitching staff.

A last word on WAR. Whatever anyone may think or not know of WAR as a metric for evaluating player performance, it is by far one of the best, and is certainly the best recognized, statistic for this purpose. Evaluating players and trades without WAR is like evaluating the benefits of investing in a business without using financial statements. Any one with any credible interest in trades and player values will at least understand the concepts underlying this metric. It is a an excellent model for comparing performance among a diverse range of players at all positions. Neither it, nor any other mathematical model of human activities is going to be perfect, just as card counting does not ensure everyday success at the blackjack table. But if you don't understand the basics of WAR, you don't understand the performance aspects of baseball any more than a a blackjack player understands that game being ignorant of the event and outcome probabilities inherent in selecting a card from the deck. One may not believe Park Place is worth however many hundred dollars of Monopoly money, and that Baltic is a better value, but these represent a convergence of facts (what do the spaces cost, the likelihood of earning revenue from opponents landing on a particular property, and the likely income derived from ownership thereof) that soundlessly dominate the game and its likely outcomes.

What is even more insipid is trying to use criticism of others' propensity to frame arguments based on WAR and other metrics as a backhanded means of ignoring or criticizing the stat itself. Call me a dick, prick, or whatever pejorative is best available, the stain will not be on me or the other object of derision. But suggesting Eric and Txball are nome de plumes for the same person sinks to the twin shames of stupidity (anyone here for a couple of weeks or at CIL for five minutes knows it to be preposterous) and ignorance, by trying to bend what should be a reason-based argument into one influenced by perceived personalities or other traits.

I want to discuss reality based strategies for positively landing one or all of Stanton, Upton, Gordon, Butler, Willingham or Ruf, on the hitting side, and Price, Greinke, Shields, Moore, Cobb, or Odorizzi. Yes, all of these players are valuable at one price and much less so at another, and WAR represents a common denominator to assign a reasonable value to baseball players, whether old or young, pitcher or positional.

Sorry for yet another lengthy post, but I don't have the time or the baseball intellect of Eric, Txball, and many others here at BBTiA to write a short post.

LOL @ David/TxBall. I was about to address your points but I see Eric and primi dressed you down to the point where you'll probably be carrying a different moniker. There's nothing left to say except "I agree". I would love to discuss more of these trades until the Winter Meetings come to pass in whatever fashion with whatever valuations one presents, as long as it is presented logically and within reason WITHOUT attacking posters (or metrics) who clearly know their subject matter.

Regarding Stanton:
Sometimes you can build around a couple stars, and sometimes you need to trade your stars and start over, like the Astros are doing. I'm not sure if the Marlins should do that; I have a feeling they'd rather try the former and see if it works, but they have pretty much dumped anyone of significant value other than Stanton, and he may well find himself in the same mindset that Tex did here (a star surrounded by a bunch of kids, and indignant because they aren't competitive). Either way, the Marlins have the potential to net a huge haul if they want to. As Kristen said, they could command a better package than the Rangers did for Tex, which could provide them guys to build around for years. Whether it's a smart move or not is too hard to say at this point, especially if MLB might not approve any more potentially controversial moves in or out of the maelstrom that is Miami.

Regarding the Rays:
I have been touting a trade with Tampa for a while now (and I'm not the only one). Price is probably at the same eliteness level as Stanton, but he's a bit older, will cost more (though obviously projects to provide a lot of surplus value), and has fewer controlled years left. But we know the Rays operate on a shoestring budget and probably won't change that anytime soon. Their model works well for them, but it entails not keeping a lot of players once they become expensive. I can't imagine them wanting to shell out 9 figures to lock up Price now or when he's free, so there's certainly an incentive to move him for a likewise huge package. Although it may be better to hold on to him a little longer, before he skyrockets, and trade Shields, who is already becoming expensive, although he won't get quite as big a package as Price. The Rangers and Rays could make a good trade, I would suspect more likely for Shields than Price, and I would argue they should, considering how unlikely it is that their top bid for Greinke will be enough to pry him away from both LA teams.

Regarding WAR:
FanGraphs reminds us that we shouldn't ever use just one metric to evaluate players, but that WAR is a handy reference point. It's a decent place to start, at a high level, gathering parameters for potential acquisitions. It is not the end-all, be-all of stats, and it occasionally misleads (Yu Darvish was tied for 5th place in fWAR this year, but I don't think he was the 5th, 6th, or 7th best pitcher in the league this year). But it's one of the better ways we armchair GMs can engage in speculation that's as realistic as we can make it. I think understanding it is fundamental to this discussion.

And finally, I have to give props to primi for managing to shoehorn into a single sentence several baseball players, recreational vices, a surreal experience involving a Rolling Stones album, and the word "pickle".

Primi, if you're addressing me there, then you've fallen into the same "missing the point" mindset that those others did, regarding what I was trying to point out initially. As my point really didn't pertain to the details of WAR, I didn't take time to worry about those details in that post and just made my point in general.

But just because I didn't bother to review the baseline parameters of WAR for that initial post doesn't somehow negate what I was pointing out about those WAR totals you posted. The point was, we can see that WAR (within those totals) clearly fails to capture - or incorrectly captures - an accurate reflection of 2012 wins. And GMs, in buying or trading for players, are trying to pay for more actual wins on the field, not for more of the WAR stat itself.

I didn't know if the error was within your adjustments, or within WAR's assumptions, so I left the door open because you can double-check your own numbers easier than I can.

Ultimately there's no question that GMs have a way to place a value on players. But it's not as certain that "WAR" (a formula created by someone external to their team, with their own personal biases built into the formula) is something seen by GMs as reliable, or is an all-in-one-number player evaluation tool of choice for GMs in general. And when we see how WAR credits the Angels as having had a much better 2012 season than the Rangers (total WAR more than double, per your totals), it's reasonable to assume that GMs would use and prefer something that more accurately reflects contributions to the bottom line goal of winning games in evaluating trades.

I understand why sports analysts (and fans) in every sport desire the definitive all-encompassing system to say who played better than whom. But more often than not, what we get in such formulas misses something and can't actually encapsulate all aspects of player evaluation in the right way, which means the more we extrapolate those results to reach conclusions at a further level, the more skewed the results are likely to be.

In real life, there might very well be 30 different player evaluation formulas used by GMs, and none of them a version of WAR. If so, trying to evaluate how much each team pays for one "win" in WAR - when they aren't even pursuing such things - creates false conclusions.

^Fail.

You've made lackluster arguments while attacking others using your woeful misinterpretations. Ive even highlighted for you where you went wrong but you still want to say that OTHERS dont get your terrible points? No, just, no.

David. I am definitely the wrong person to ask about the finer points of WAR or any of the modern sabremetrics. Earlier I posted a link to the Fangraphs glossary for this statistic. It reads easily and clearly; it is well worth reading and explicates a statistic that sums of many of the essential components involved in ultimate wins and losses.

There is always going to be aspects of my posts worth critiquing. I have nowhere near the understanding and fluency of the modern stats enjoyed by many others here at BBTiA. There are many highly intelligent, perceptive, and insightful fans here. Maybe I don't get around the Internet enough but the feature writing and comments are the best I've found. If there are others up to this level of baseball appreciation and knowledge I would appreciate the references. I personally am learning a lot here. As is the usual case, the more I learn the less I realize II know.

As for the disparities between the WAR I cited in earlier posts in the context of attempting to evaluate the relative range of prices for WAR depending upon payroll and in the circumstances of free agency, let me reiterate I did NOT personally calculate WAR values, but used those values presented in Baseball Reference.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2012-value-batting.shtml

This is not a Baseball Reference flaw. Fangraphs presents a nearly identical calculation.

I did not unintentionally input an incorrect value for LAA. WAR is not ideal for predicting ultimate team wins. There is a different metric for that purpose, Pythagorean Wins. As these are mathematical models there will always be discrepancies between actual and predicted results. As with all things in a probability based universe, in theory reality and theory should be the same, but in reality they are not. But the best decisions usually follow probable expectations. Sometimes you fill an inside straight and win a big pot, but usually it is a bad decision, and any poker player who regularly plays against the odds will end up poorer by the end of the night.

Even more so with WAR, as it does not involve the limited and predictable finiteness of cards or dice. Still, WAR is a far better metric than the traditional stats like BA, RbIs, etc. Andy quite rightly reminded us that no stat represents a universal key to ultimate understanding. But for casual discussions WAR is a convenient and accurate statistic.

We are in the midst of a brave new world of baseball analytics. Technology is giving us more, different, and hopefully, better data. Computers enable the mathematically proficient to explore new and more complicated correlations. Someday WAR will be the new RBI, supplanted by algorithms that more finely recognize and parse the meaningful events of a game. If the meaning and use of baseball statistics is truly of interest to you, get The Book, which explains the new Ian's compares it to the old.

Here's a HUGE clue for you, David. If you're looking at WAR totals for any particular team, it would help if you also viewed the pitchers' totals.

via fangraphs:

Angels: roughly 47-48 total team WAR.
Rangers: roughly 50 total team WAR.

It's obvious you havent actually done any research. With all due respect, shut up and do it.

David. You seem to be saying that if a methodology isn't perfect it confounds and skews more than it illuminates. I disagree, especially with respect to discussions among those familiar with the stats and their limitations. If you discard everything with flaws you discard everything and then there is no factual predicate for reasonable and intelligent discussions.

As for real GMs. The good ones are spending big money on these stats. Think about the stats used in laymen investment books. These underly what professionals are using, but the pros are taking these concepts to much higher levels, spending huge dollars on PhDs, computer scientists, software developers, and the best gear money can buy. The same is happening in baseball. The fact that GMs are using more refined versions does not negate the benefits of the off the rack models. And yes, GMs are extremely conscious of what they expect to get for what they spend and trade. Read Moneyball. And when guys like Txball, Eric, RFan , Profar, et al have something to say, listen closely. At least that is what I do.

This is a dumb converstion. Obviously every single team in baseball wants Stanton. The Rangers have the pieces to trade, but here's the problem: The Rangers don't want to trade the pieces to get Stanton, and the Marlins flat out don't want to trade Stanton, at least not this year when he's making league minimum. That would be dumb unless they are given Profar, Olt, AND Perez, which would be dumb. I understand the offseason is all about what could happen, and everyone dreaming, but you might want to keep it realistic.

Txball, I didn't expect you to be smart enough to ever recognize that you've done nothing but address something different than I've been saying, and to adjust your response to something beyond a juvenile level. And you didn't surprise at all. Thank you very much!

Primi, thanks for the reasoned and thoughtful response. I understand what you're saying and the quest (and rationale) for an ultimate evaluating number, both in MLB and other sports. If you think I'm somehow advocating for RBI or somesuch and rejecting advanced metrics, as Txball wants to leap to conclude in his typical ad hominem way, and feel you have to persuade me, you've misread me entirely.

My point wasn't that WAR and the like are "too advanced" but rather that they aren't advanced enough, Therefore the way GMs spend their money might be more reflective of what they do value, rather than being a referendum on how much one win of WAR is worth to them.

"That would be dumb unless they are given Profar, Olt, AND Perez, which would be dumb."

It would be pretty dumb, but I don't think even that gets the job done. I think it probably requires at least one more solid prospect or established player. Just a guess, though.

I don't think that's enough either, and you're right it would take exactly what you're saying, but there is no way Texas would trade those 3 for any 1 player, and with the Marlins salary dump they are obviously trying to start over, and get young and cheap players, therefore any deal for Stanton would have to involove young players because he's already both young and cheap, but he's also proven at the MLB level. There's no scenario in which the Marlins trade Stanton this season. It's just a pipe dream that the media has made up to get readers. Anyone that thinks Stanton has even a 1% chance of being traded before the season starts lacks any kind of baseball knowledge whatsoever.

No, david. You simply dont understand that its an ever evolving metric with which you have very little comprehension. You can attack me all you please but that doesnt change the facts nor does it change the efficacy of this metric in measuring an individuals performance in conjunction with other metrics. Youve shown not only are you unwilling to admit that you have basically no clue, but also a staunch position thats been shown to be embarrassingly confounded. Basically no one here has to say anything to highlight your egregious misinterpretation. You've done well enough on your own. No amount of retractions or feeble attempts of an explanation will gloss over your faux pas. You have no credibilty.

Maybe we're wrong (naaah), but i have a feeling the creators of WAR and the proponents of advanced metrics and its evolving components have nothing to worry about no matter your attempts at circuitous reasoning. "Thanks for trying"

Txball your pomposity and haterism has made you blind. You're wrong on this whole exchange and already accidentally admitted it.

My questioning of what was being offered was over the WAR totals that primi posted and on which he was basing a $$/WAR analysis. That clearly freaked you out, that someone dare second-guess anything about WAR numbers, and you decided to focus on the fact I hadn't spent any time worrying about the details of WAR's baseline concept, without actually considering the point I was making. Those numbers didn't logically make sense, which meant something was amiss somewhere.

As I tried to re-explain the point that you had missed, the more hate you showed, all the while never exhibiting a lick of understanding of my point. Haters gotta hate rather than try to understand, I guess.

Yet as you yourself ultimately noted - and despite the fact I didn't bother to work through WAR's details at that point - those numbers I instinctively called into question because they made no sense, were indeed wrong (precisely as I was noting). At that point I didn't know what was wrong about them and didn't try to figure it out - whether it was due to a flaw in WAR itself, or to an error in something primi was doing - but they were wrong, and I was right on target in noticing their irrationality and calling them into question.

Sigh. You're being a blockhead for no reason. You've cited attacks on WAR and its clearly based on your misconceptions, whether it be from primi's calculations (which can be EASILY traced through the websites i've provided) or from the metric itself.

You've repeatedly quoted the Angels 37.6 POSITIONAL PLAYER WAR and asked the same question repeatedly. Here you go one more time:

WHEN YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE METRIC, ANYTHING YOU SAY REGARDING THE SUBJECT ,WHETHER ITS DIRECT OR INDIRECTLY PERTAINING TO THE METRIC, YOUR POINTS ARE IDIOTIC.

It's not "haterism". It's flat out fact. How in the world are you insinuating that your misinformed views on the matter are over everyone's heads when you dont even know how to correctly read a chart (or simply refuse to check your quoted numbers). Im seriously not trying to attack you, but good lord man...