Leaders Of Men
There’s been a lot of discussion about leadership and chemistry around Major League Baseball recently. Much of it has stemmed from the disarray and dismissals in the Seattle Mariners organization. First, there was the dugout confrontation among Chone Figgins (who had a reputation as a great teammate), Russell Branyan, and manager Don Wakamatsu. Then there was the firing of Wakamatsu, pitching coach Rick Adair, bench coach Ty Van Burkleo, and performance coach Steve Hecht. The former incident coaxed USS Mariner and FanGraphs author Dave Cameron to invoke the now-(in)famous words of Detroit skipper Jim Leyland:
“Shucks, I can find a nice bunch of guys you want in the clubhouse. I can find that…. Take all that clubhouse [stuff] and all that, throw it out the window. Every writer in the country has been writing about that [nonsense] for years. Chemistry don’t mean [anything]…. don’t mean [a hill of beans]. [The Nationals] got good chemistry because their team is improved, they got a real good team, they got guys knocking in runs, they got a catcher hitting .336, they got a phenom pitcher they just brought up. That’s why they’re happy.”
This sort of statement tends to make a certain type of fan very happy. It supports the conviction that veteran leadership and clubhouse chemistry are overrated, at best, and that what’s important is, by and large, what can be measured.
Now, somehow I seem to have developed a reputation as a “stathead” or a “stat geek” in the Rangers’ stretch of the Intertubes. That’s certainly nothing I’d claim for myself; I’m no Tom Tango. (I wish I were.) So it may come as a surprise to some that I disagree.
But my disagreement doesn’t fly in the face of my predilection for the numerical. Just because I can’t tell you how many runs leadership and chemistry are worth, or how many wins they buy a team, doesn’t mean that they aren’t important.
It also doesn’t mean these admittedly abstract concepts can’t be quantified. It’s certainly plausible that an enterprising researcher could develop measures and models that try to capture the effects of leadership and clubhouse camaraderie. (Seem outlandish? Read up on the Wonderlic, the wonderfully named PAPI, and other similar tools, and think about how they might be applied to the question at hand.)
I will, however, agree with Leyland on one point: the way that many in the media write about leadership and chemistry makes them easy targets for critics.
Only July 30, Jeff Wilson printed a mailbag item from “Marla” in Arlington. “Marla” wrote,
“Stat-head websites that claim they only root for team laundry will tell everyone within earshot that the Rangers need to get rid of Michael Young ASAP because his weirdly obscure secondary stats such as FLIP, BATTY (and whatever other acronyms they come up with) are not good enough.“
Wilson responded sympathetically:
“Silly things happen when statistics dictate the way someone views a player. Unfortunately, for players like Young and Dustin Pedroia and Todd Helton, there is no statistic that measures professionalism, leadership, respect from peers, and importance to a franchise. Not even Jeter is immune to the stats lovers. His range, for instance, is an easy target. But would the Yankees be a better team without Jeter? The stats can be manipulated to show that they would be, but there would be an enormous hole in the clubhouse that no stat can possibly explain. The Rangers would also take a giant hit if Young weren't around.”
I’d argue that far sillier things happen when sensationalism dictates the way journalists answer a question.
I haven’t read a single analysis by any knowledgeable “stats lover” who has manipulated stats in order to prove that the Yankees would be a better team without Derek Jeter. If I’ve missed seeing such research, I hope Jeff Wilson will point it out to me, and explain the statistical manipulation it’s based on. I would be game to read and respond to it.
Meantime, though, consider this: According to FanGraphs, Jeter has been worth at least 3.5 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in every single season since 1997. In six of those 13 seasons, Jeter has been worth 5 WAR or more. In four of those seasons, he’s been worth 6 WAR or more – and twice, he’s been above 7 WAR. At the same time, Jeter has consistently ranked near the bottom of all shortstops by Mitchel Lichtman’s Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) and John Dewan’s +/- system.
For those who might object to WAR, UZR, and +/- as batty or flippant measures employed only by “stat-head websites,” let me boil it down: overall, Jeter’s been really good for most of his career. Really, really good. That doesn’t mean that his defense hasn’t been really bad.
Now, does that mean that a hypothetically unplanned Jeter departure wouldn’t hurt the Yankees? Don’t be silly. Of course it doesn’t. In fact, if I had to bet (and if there were actually some way that the matter could be objectively and definitively settled) I’d bet that Jeter leaving the Bronx would hurt the ballclub – not just because of the reduced performance by any expected replacement at short, but also due to the loss of his leadership and contributions in the clubhouse.
At the same time, I’d imagine that any such wounds could be healed by a sufficiently awesome replacement. If the Yankees somehow swapped Jeter out for Hanley Ramirez, for example, or even Troy Tulowitzki, how much angst do you think the clubhouse hole would really generate among Yankees players? How many wins would it cost the team? How much damage would the Yankees’ 2010 World Series chances take – and what would the deal do for their outlook in 2011 and beyond?
Bringing it back to Texas: it’s not as if the Rangers haven’t dealt with the unexpected vanishing of popular clubhouse leaders before. Think back to early April 2006, for example, when Jon Daniels pulled the trigger on a deal sending David Dellucci – the player responsible for the most famous double in Rangers history – to Philadelphia for pitcher Robinson Tejeda and Hank Blalock’s littler brother Jake. Key Rangers were, safe to say, not pleased:
"It was a huge shock," shortstop Michael Young said Sunday morning. "I didn't see it coming. I'm absolutely shocked that one of our better players and a perfect teammate was traded before Opening Day.”
"I was very disappointed," first baseman Mark Teixeira said. "David was my best friend on the team. He'll be missed by everybody. I don't think anybody is happy about it. He's probably the most popular player on the team and a big part of our great team chemistry."
Dellucci joined the Rangers in 2004. That year, according to FanGraphs, he put up a .242 /.342/.441 line (a .339 wOBA). In 2005, also with Texas, he hit .251/.367/.513 (a .378 wOBA). He was 32 that season.
In 2006, with the Phillies, he nearly duplicated his 2005, going .292./369/.530 (.377 wOBA). Subsequently, his wOBAs were .293, .311, and .236 respectively, in seasons in which he played 56, 113, and 22 major-league games. He retired in 2009.
2005 was, far and away, Dellucci’s best year by WAR. The Rangers literally sold him at his peak value. And even at that point, Dellucci was only the seventh-most valuable position player for Texas, trailing Teixeira, Young, Gary Matthews, Jr., Rod Barajas, Kevin Mench, and Alfonso Soriano in WAR.
And remember: that wasn’t a very good 2005 Texas team. The Rangers finished 79-83, 16 games back of the division-winning Angels and seven back of the second-place A’s. Maybe Dellucci was the perfect teammate, the most popular player, and a big part of some great team chemistry – but how much would all of that have helped the 80-82 2006 edition of the team, which finished 13 games behind the AL West-champion A’s and four behind the second-place Angels? The 2006 squad underperformed its Pythagorean by six games. Anyone want to argue those were all due to Dellucci’s effect on team chemistry? If not, how many more wins would Dellucci’s leadership and popularity have garnered? (And how does that compare to the number of wins Dellucci’s bat would have created, against the compensation that Tejeda represented?)
For a more recent case, consider the handwringing over the departure of Marlon Byrd, Kevin Millwood, Eddie Guardado, and Omar Vizquel this past off-season. In early December, for example, Evan Grant observed,
If the Rangers deal Millwood and fail to sign Marlon Byrd along with letting Eddie Guardado and Omar Vizquel walk, there is going to be virtually no veteran leadership in the clubhouse. It would all fall on the shoulders of Michael Young and one man can't lead an entire team by himself. Don't think a team lacking in clubhouse policing would be an issue? OK, just wait.
OK: we’ll wait. While we do, we’ll have time to reflect on this:
“There are a lot of reasons why dealing Millwood would make sense now, namely that the Rangers would be trading him at higher value than he's probably worth. And I'm not advocating that the Rangers shouldn't deal him. But any suggestion that the Rangers can take the one veteran presence in their rotation out of the mix and still contend in 2010 is simply incongruous. If the Rangers deal him, they should also announce at the same press conference that the timetable for contending moved back at least one more year.”
Granted, the Rangers have taken a hit by losing Marlon Byrd to the Cubs in free agency. Veteran leadership and clubhouse policing, however, aren’t the first reasons that leap to mind. Those would be Byrd’s continued performance at the plate (.311/.371/.465 – a .370 wOBA) and in centerfield (16 DRS and 16.7 UZR/150 in 916 innings – though it’s worth noting that Byrd’s CF UZR and DRS have bounced around considerably over the last several years). Sadly, neither those numbers nor Byrd’s "emotional leadership" have helped the Cubs climb within 15 games of the NL Central lead – or, for that matter, of a .500 record.
Maybe it’s just that I don’t understand what media types mean when they write about these concepts. A recent piece at ESPN.com, for example, listed three primary reasons the Rangers are in first place in the AL West. The third was “veteran leadership,” and under that heading, the piece cited Cliff Lee, Young, Nelson Cruz, Josh Hamilton, Vladimir Guerrero, Elvis Andrus, and Ian Kinsler as examples. It’s worth noting that Lee has been with the Rangers for a month; Guerrero, seven months. This is the second full year for Cruz and the soon-to-be 22-year old Andrus, and the third full year for Hamilton. (I’ll leave it to readers to debate whether Kinsler qualifies as a veteran leader.)
And so nearly 1,800 words later, we arrive at Michael Young. You knew we would. I know you’ve been waiting for it. I know you’re expecting me to bash him.
So here it is: I think that Young is a Rangers version of Jeter. His bat still plays well at his position; he doesn’t field his position well at all, and never really has; and although his annual salary may at times outstrip his seasonal performance, cumulatively, he’s probably worth the price the Rangers have been paying for him.
I also agree with Evan Grant. Young can’t lead this team by himself. I agree with Jeff Wilson, as well: Young means a lot to this team as a leader, and (to borrow Young's words about Dellucci) is a big part of the Rangers’ great team chemistry.
And all that said: if the Rangers could trade Young for Evan Longoria straight up, I’m willing to bet that the giant hits (and great glove) Longoria would bring to the table would far outweigh any “great hit” to the Rangers chemistry, especially if Longoria chewed out Julio Borbon once or twice.
Despite my lack of expertise on the subject, I’ll hazard the claim that it’s an advantage for a team to have good chemistry, and to boast strong leaders – veteran, emotional, and otherwise. I’ll speculate that the claw, the antlers, the shaving-cream pies, and the pink backpack help keep players loose over the heavy grind of the season. I’ll venture that guys who’ve been there and done that – and who won’t accept anything less than a full 162-game effort – most likely help a team maintain focus and intensity, even when boasting a 7.5-game lead in the division.
More than anything, though, I’m willing to bet that over the next several years, the number of plaudits for Young’s, Jeter’s, and others’ leadership qualities will be directly proportional to the numbers they produce at the plate and the number of wins and playoff successes their teams rack up. Because as happy as this “stats lover” is to concede that leadership and chemistry are most likely noteworthy elements of building a contender, I’m also willing to wager that the most valuable leaders in baseball score as highly on the leader boards as they do in any popularity contests – and that in the end, the best catalyst for good chemistry is winning.
Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (36)
I swear, when it comes to good content and writing I have no idea why this isn't front page ESPN stuff. You guys rock! Great article Josh.
Josh, you out did yourself. Quit while you are ahead. This has to be the best article you have written and needs to be linked all over ESPN and the intertubes.
Why is it necessary to put "stathead" "stats lover" and the like in quotes? You are a stathead, stat loving stat geek, so why not embrace it? I see this article as a stab at being a human being with "feelings" and "emotions". You're not, you are a stat loving stat freak who would rather overthink baseball than be comfortably ignorant about acronyms and mathmatical data about velocity of pitches during day games in June. EMBRACE YOUR FREAK!!! I don't come to this website to read about clubhouse leadership and chemistry, stick with what you know.
Great article Josh! Let's all EMBRACE OUR FREAK!!!
This is probably one of the best dissections of team chemistry I've seen, even there are no numbers to crunch. Don't let the label of stathead of stat-lover get you down. This is why I love this site.
That being said, I couldn't help but notice Jamie Newberg's reference to his recounting of the Dave Valle story in 1996 (http://newberg.mlblogs.com/archives/2006/08/the_newberg_rep_5.html). Team chemistry is when a group of guys can respond to a backup catcher barking at each of the players as if he were their drill sargent - "Are YOU willing to do what it takes to WIN?!"
Great teams respond to that and perform to win. Chemistry begets motivation, but that motivation only goes so far. But if you can match talent with that motivation to perform, then you've got a contender to win. It's tragic when you find a team with talent, but can't get motivated. Perhaps players like Guerrero and Cruz respond here in the last 6-7 weeks and do what it takes, because they have the talent. Hopefully motivation isn't the obstacle, but you'd hate that to be the only reason.
Leland is old school top down management. He's not in love with the chemistry concept because in his view, he -the manager, and his staff set the agenda. All the other stuff is just fluff. Not saying I agree one way or the other, but he's not the guy to go to to get an unvarnished view.
As to the rest. In my opinion the #s guys beat the game to death with the hyper-analysis of virtually every obscure quantifier available to explain things that, in my view don't need explanation, that is, -just enjoy the game for what it is. Kind of like word count in writing columns, more is not necessarily better.
Excellent post. Well written and well timed. Your point about Jeter is probably the best argument concerning the issue, great leadership does not make you a great fielder. And pointing that out does not make you anti that player; it makes you a rational observer of the game. If you’re overpaid, you’re overpaid. The choice to overpay a player is one that every franchise has to make, and we as fans have to decide, normally with the befit of hindsight, if that move was worth it. Right now, Young is over paid, but I love having him on this team. Professionalism is something every franchise needs. We pay a premium for it and have a slow footed 3rd baseman because of it. If his bat truly regresses, then he will become a liability that no amount of leadership will compensate for.
Damn is this team fun to watch, talk about and read about. Again excellent work, go Rangers.
www.madsob.com
yeah this is probably the best article this site has seen since 2007
Dear Josh,
You are rather awesome.
Lo mejor
-Jason
Very nice Joey - some extremely interesting points. I like reading about team chemistry, because I feel that it's a very underrated portion of the game.
Oops, I mean Josh. But err, credit Joey for posing it?
Team chemistry, leadership and managerial/FO decisions are areas that cannot be measured. I think that is why beat writers and columnists tout there importance. It is really the last straw that the columnists have in thier quest to remain relevent. As for ther beat writers, they just need to give us the news and some background on it so the we fans can understand a player's/team's decsions.
I appreciate all the kind comments, folks. (Yim: thanks for the chuckle; Parks: muchas gracias.)
Brian, I saw Jamey's reference to the Valle piece in this morning's report, but hadn't thought more about it -- thanks for providing the link. The 2010 Rangers could have used a guy like the 1996 Valle, and not just for his drill-sergeant routine. (Valle posted a .302/.368/.500 line, good for a .377 wOBA, in his limited action that season.)
rob m., I'd argue that team chemistry and leadership are areas that haven't been measured -- not that they can't be. And I'd point out that there are folks who've developed approaches to measuring both managerial and front-office decisions. (The work Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin did in "The Book," for example, is relevant to assessing managers' personnel and in-game decisions, and Victor Wang's work provides one foundation for thinking about front-office decisions.)
Great article Josh.
I think fans and non-players alike give credo to leadership because it is more valuable to us in our careers and jobs. Companies and businesses need good leaders to be successful. I tend to believe that leadership of pro sports teams has more to do with the people not on the field.
My opinion is that some of the writers forget that there are many different different styles of effective leadership.
Jeter is probably the best all around SS of all time, bashing him over "poor range" is hilarious. If I had to take a SS on an all time team, I'd take Jeter all day, and it has nothing to do with his leadership.
As usual, nice work Josh. I wish more people realized that liking statistics and valuing the "eyeball" test are not mutually exclusive. I for one can't think of many (if any) writers who base 100% of their opinions on statistical analysis. Personally, I like to think that I enjoy watching the games, over-analyzing the numbers, and everything in between. I look forward to more.
Nowhere in the article did I see what exactly leadership and chemistry constitute. What exactly does a leader on a baseball team do? What SPECIFIC actions does he do? What are some SPECIFIC examples of good chemistry? I hate when sports fans toss cliches around just to sound ever-so knowledgable within a peer group, then fail to actually define what they mean.
I seem to recall Kobe and O'Neal winning a championship even though they hated each other's guts. The two best players on the team and therefore the two guys most likely to have leadership stature in the clubhouse hate each other and are constantly displaying petulant behaviour towards each other right in front of their teammates, yet the team still wins. Locker room divvied up + guys not talking to each other = championship. Seems instead of emphasizing camaraderie and teamwork, the Lakers applied the Adam Smith free-market adage of everyone working for their own benefit benefits the greater good. Kobe passed to O'Neal out of self-interest - because that was the way to go if Kobe wanted to win a championship, not because he wanted O'Neal to win one too.
Leadership & chemistry = overrated.
Here's a rangers video about the Claw and Antlers... Chemistry FTW!
http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10873405&topic_id=9840896&c_id=tex
Oh DMax...
@Kristen W.: It'd be interesting to discuss more about how "leadership" and "chemistry" could be defined and operationalized. I was operating on the assumption that most folks reading a piece like this one would be willing to grant the premise.
You don't seem willing to do so -- but in that case, how can you make the claim that "leadership & chemistry = overrated"? You yourself don't define the terms, so it seems your arguments would be subject to your own critique.
Why, for example, do you assume that Bryant and O'Neal were the "two guys most likely to have leadership stature in the [Lakers] clubhouse," simply because they were "the two best players on the team"? In a Rangers context, for example, there's a strong argument to be made that Hamilton, Cruz, and Lewis have been the three best players on the team this season. Are they more likely than Young to have leadership status in the Texas clubhouse as a result?
By the way, fantastic job Josh.
@Josh: I think the work by Tango and others are good guidelines but they don't deal with specific situations. Tango's run expectancy chart is an example of that.
Should a particular batter bunt in a certain situation vs a given pitcher? The chart may say no but the manager may choose to do so. Is he wrong or does he know something that doesn't show up in the stats?
You mentioned Marlon Byrd in your article. Is he the reason Josh, MY and others bust thier butt down the line to get an IF hit? Marlon certainly did that when he was here. How do you measure hustle?
Sabremetrics is good to help baseball fans understand what is happening on the field. But the further you get away from the field the less accurate and relevent it will be.
Great article Josh. Always a good read. I agree with most of the points you make. While I have never really considered myself a "stats geek" (mostly because I haven't taken the time to understand the stats, what they mean, etc.) I do enjoy reading about them and there relationship to unquantifiable terms such as leadership and chemistry. I have always been a MY fan and I am glad he has been a ranger his entire professional career. I don't know where we'd be without him but I'd be willing to bet that'd we wouldn't be in the position we are now and I hope that he continues to keep this team on course.
Supposed to be AAM. Stupid apple correction
@Josh G:
Well, since no else will provide an actual example, leadership in say the Lakers locker room would have come in the form of keeping Kobe and O'Neal in line because seeing their two best guys at each other's throats might affect the morale of their teammates. Tough task to undertake for someone given the size of their egos, so not surprising it didn't happen. Anyways, it didn't but the Lakers still won.
And leadership can be done by example, can it not? A person who talks but doesn't back it up would be less credible a leader to his teammates than someone who doesn't talk but does produce. Dirk seems a quiet guy, but his teammates love him because he produces. Productive players are respected unless they're dinks.
I believe there has been some suggestion that Fisher was that guy on the Lakers. It's also believed by many that the lack of chemistry between those two left multiple championships on the table.
Great article, Mr. GahROON.
I consider myself to be a stats over intangibles guy, but that doesn't mean I completely discount the value of guys who are good for clubhouse chemistry. I just think it plays a much smaller role than many in the mainstream media seem to espouse. I don't doubt that the pendulum has probably swung too far the other way among stat-friendly sites.
A relevant addition to the discussion may be the musings of one Josh Lewin. A few weeks ago on the broadcast, he was musing that the 25th guy on the roster always seems to be a personable guy who most players like. The thought was that if you have two guys (neither of whom are great) that are competing for a job, why not take the one who everybody likes being around.
I think that the talent of the player is really the key. We'll tolerate more deviant behavior from the stars; their talent outweighs most of their poor personal skills. However, as you approach replacement level player and the number of options for that role expands, it makes sense that personality could be a tiebreaker. Selection would lead to a weeding out of crappy, grumpy players.
I think the author is right, in that, chemistry might be another way of saying that the guys get along, are happy to work at the ballpark (mostly) day in and day out for a 162 games.
How many times does a hitter hit .290 one year adn .270 the next? Or a pitcher's ERA go up or down a year. Obviously, some of that is related to injury and self motivation. But, some of the motivation comes from your teammates. If you are on a team playing with 9 other T.O.'s, whether winning or losing, your attitude and focus is going to be different than playing with 9 other Michael Youngs, again, whether winning or losing. I believe that is a factor, even if, as a player, you don't want it to be.
Great article Josh, it really made me think.
"I wish more people realized that liking statistics and valuing the "eyeball" test are not mutually exclusive. I for one can't think of many (if any) writers who base 100% of their opinions on statistical analysis. Personally, I like to think that I enjoy watching the games, over-analyzing the numbers, and everything in between." - Dave H
This, a thousand times this for how I think people should watch the game.
When it comes to the impact of team chemistry and leadership they are simply unmeasurable.
Think of this situation. You are picking players for a team, you have a choice between your friend or another player. Your friend is measurably weaker on average but can be implored to perform over the expected level of the other player by you when needed on a fairly regular basis. He may or may not be able to have the same effect on you. Who would you choose?
Sure you can say this is an impossible situation. I would contend it is something that happens in sport everyday.
I grew up playing baseball exclusively through to the high school level and enjoying coming to the park everyday to play with your friends always made me want to play harder, and as more of a team player. Great leaders help bridge the natural gaps between players and truly are the glue that holds a team together. I ask all of you that disagree to think back when you played little league, why did you enjoy playing for one team more than another? Were you never a part of a team that played to a level greater than the sum of it's parts?
It would be complicated, but it seems to me that "team chemistry" could be approached by measuring the impact on WAR that comes for each player when playing with each other member of his club. Then the pluses and minuses, added together, could give you a measure of the chemistry of any given set of players.
Great item Josh. Thank you. This is stuff the the best sports writers of a past era would have been very proud to have written. Might be an idea for a book btw.
In reading many of the comments here, it looks like some are impressed by anything with three paragraphs or more. Frankly, the whole idea of entertaining whether chemistry can actually be quantified seems silly to me. How do you build a model that determines whether Marlon Byrd radiates more chemistry than Derek Jeter does? Hats off to Josh for crafting a lengty article without really saying much that anyone didn't already know.
@WacoGreg on you little league topic, I have to say I never played on a good team that played above its head. I had the poor fortune throughout my youth sports "career" to always play on teams coached by guys who were there to make their kid the star. In basketball the coach's kid had the ball what seemed like 90% of the time even though I (and my brother) were probably the 2nd and 3rd tallest kids on the team. In baseball the coaches gave very little instruction and new virtually nothing about the basics of the game or mechanics. His kid was our "ace" starting pitcher. I'm a lefty and have no clue why they never even thought to let me pitch. So, I can't speak to the positive effects of chemistry, but I do know how easily a bad coach/manager can ruin a team. I think Ron Washington has as much (if not more) to do with good chemistry as anyone involved with the Rangers. I'd certainly be interested in hearing from others' experiences throughout little league/high school baseball.
@Dave H
I spoke to the positive side of the subject primarily because this article immediately made me think back to my high school JV team. We started the season horribly and with a football coach that knew squat about baseball. I started out on the bench as did some of the guys I grew up playing with. We averaged about 5 errors a game and no one seemed too happy to be there. After about a month or so of this we had a different coach come in (again from football but he knew baseball well) and a young catcher who was a natural leader was dropped from varsity to get more playing time. The coaches defense first approach, along with our new leader behind the plate changed the approach of the entire team. Most importantly the kid playing catcher was a great motivator and held everyone accountable during practice and of course the games. Suddenly a sac bunt or a grounder to the right side to move the runner was exciting because everyone valued the team. Our fielding got appreciably better (I like to think me starting helped), and we won roughly nine out of ten to finish off the season tied for the best record of any baseball team in school history. (Granted my school always sucks at baseball)
However I very much understand the flip side of it. Nepotism is always an important player in little league, you can only hope the coaches son is actually the best player, or the coach is humble enough to put him in his place. And I think bad chemistry leads to lapses in good performance in even the best teams.
Thanks for the input Dave.
I have been coming to this site for a couple of months now and I havent commented on anything but I just want to quickly say that this may be the best sports article I have ever read.
Very nicely done. I enjoy your writing and analysis.