How the IBB search came out.

[scorekeeper]

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

So, there’d only been 7 of them all season and only 4 were our pitchers, and each of the ones on our batters were failures. Of the 4 our pitchers gave up, two were failures and led directly to losses. One of the others succeeded in a game and situation that had no real meaning, and the other came in a game that for all intents and purposed was lost anyway.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

[CircleChange11]

That data is pretty much congruent with my feelings on the IBB based on my personal experience. The "good" IBB's are the ones where 1B is open and 1-out and it creates force play situations everywhere.

I suppose if one has enough confidence in their pitcher to "pitch around" the batter, that would be a better choice. Anyway, the D is already is a tough spot and they're simply looking for something that can get them out of the inning without any more runs scoring, realizing that with 2nd and 3rd, a BIP likely scores one run, even if the batter makes an out, a hit likely scores em both.

It's an "all-in" situation when you don't have many chips left. You're looking to give up zero runs (from that point on), and when it fails you end up giving up 2-3 runs ... which is about the same damage you might have encountered that you'd have if the batter did the same thing without the IBB.

In many of the "1B open" IBBs, you're looking for a ground ball on the next batter. What happens after that could be as much luck as skill.

I admit I have NO idea what % of the time an IBB leading to either an inning-ending DP or a force out at home with the next batter making the 3rd out would be considered "good" or "worth the risk".

--------------------------------------------------------------

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

What did the batter immediately following the IBB do?

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

Why not go for the 6-4-3, inning over?

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

I'm not one of those guys that uses the immediate result to determine good or bad, but this seems like a dumb IBB ... even if the next batter grounds out. With runners on 1st and 2nd, there are force outs at all 3 non-plate bases (could get an out almost anywhere, and without even needing tomake a throw). These would be the instances where a non-IBB walk following a non-necessary IBB to load the bases would be "justice".

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

1B open and got the ground ball.

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

To me, this is probably one of those 50/50 or 40/60 situations. If the next guy grounds out you look like a genius. If the would-be-IBB'd batter drives in the run then "you shoulda walked" him. It happens when coaches place too much emphasis on small sample data or instances that are really vibrant in their memory.

I also think that sometimes coaches just like to be involved in the action. "Making something happen" so to speak.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

Genius! Ha Ha Ha. The coach will likely remember this instance well, and repeat the practice.

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

Well, you simply HAVE TO keep that game at 11-3. 11-3 is withn reach, 13-3 is insurmountable. *grin*

This seems like one of those situations where your choice is to get to decide whether you'd rather be knocked out by right hook or a left hook. Yippee.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

We could also look at situations where there were 2nd and 3rd 1-out and NO IBB ... and see what results happened. Again, I'm not a big fan of using singular results to determine good or bad move, so when the teams pitched to the batter and the batter drove in runs I wouldn't categorize them as "shoulda walked em" situations, although I know quite a few coaches would.

[scorekeeper]

That data is pretty much congruent with my feelings on the IBB based on my personal experience….

I really had no idea what had actually taken place, but now that I at least have some real data to go on, I will take the plunge and risk the vitriol of others, even though I don’t mean any insult to anyone or to say that any one person is mistaken in what they believe.

I wish more people had the ability to at least look at what happened like I did because it may just be that what people believe is “smart” baseball, may just not be worth the risk.

What did the batter immediately following the IBB do?

Line drive single to center, 2 RBIs.

Why not go for the 6-4-3, inning over?

As I remember the play, the infield was in and the ball was slowly hit. In retrospect, the SMART play would have been to give up 1 run and get the out at 1st. When the ball got hit, it was a real circus, with 4 runners running, and 5 infielders trying to get into the correct position. I think you know what happens in those situations. Inexperienced players will almost always bite off more than they should, and make a mistake. But that’s how they learn what their limits are!

We could also look at situations where there were 2nd and 3rd 1-out and NO IBB ... and see what results happened. Again, I'm not a big fan of using singular results to determine good or bad move, so when the teams pitched to the batter and the batter drove in runs I wouldn't categorize them as "shoulda walked em" situations, although I know quite a few coaches would.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but before I pontificate too much, I like to have more than an old man’s memory to go on. Here’s the trouble. I have the capacity to look at situations to some degree, but how many people below the ML/MiL level can do that? I wish everyone could, but the truth is, I doubt they’d allow the facts to sway them one way or the other. Not that people are stupid, but its unimaginably difficult to get someone to change their mind about something they’ve believed and been doing for decades.

[mudvnine]

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

Need a little more info to determine success or not with the IBB, but the situation for implementing was correct.

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

This is a successful IBB, fielder simply made an error. The desired play happened, the player just failed to execute.

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

Incorrect time for an IBB, not an advantage gain defensively....so that's just dumb.

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

Sounds like the IBB was correctly called, but a fielder once again made the wrong decision with the ball. The run should have never scored, unless it was a failed DP attempt (batter/runner safe at 1st).

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

Now that's just dumb. IBB should never be called with two outs (especially so early in a game) simply to "pitch around" a hitter.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

Worked out OK, but it should never have been called....again, way too early in a close game and especially not with two outs. NEVER put a runner in scoring position with two outs.

Another, "now that's just dumb".....

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

Another, ""now that's just dumb".....

There's two outs for Pete's sake, you're down by 8....why put more RBIs on the base paths when a GB gets you an out at 1st to end the inning?

So, there’d only been 7 of them all season and only 4 were our pitchers, and each of the ones on our batters were failures. Of the 4 our pitchers gave up, two were failures and led directly to losses. One of the others succeeded in a game and situation that had no real meaning, and the other came in a game that for all intents and purposed was lost anyway.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

The verdict? Out of seven, only three were correctly called for.

Of the three that were implemented correctly, on two of them, the desired results happened, but the fielder(s) handling the ball failed to execute properly. So while in the scorebook they didn't appear to work, the desired situation happened on the field....so I would say, the IBB "worked" in those two situations. The third where all three "eventually scored" needs more information as to their "success"...what did the batter after the IBB do?

The other four "IBBs" were incorrectly called, so whether they "worked" or not is meaningless.....as their implementation in the described situations was, "just dumb".

[scorekeeper]

…The verdict? Out of seven, only three were correctly called for.

Of the three that were implemented correctly, on two of them, the desired results happened, but the fielder(s) handling the ball failed to execute properly. So while in the scorebook they didn't appear to work, the desired situation happened on the field....so I would say, the IBB "worked" in those two situations. The third where all three "eventually scored" needs more information as to their "success"...what did the batter after the IBB do?

The other four "IBBs" were incorrectly called, so whether they "worked" or not is meaningless.....as their implementation in the described situations was, "just dumb".

Well, it sure looks as though there’s definitely something amiss in the whole thing, doesn’t there. You’re calling the decisions made by some pretty fair coaches dumb, which is ok ‘casue I often say the same thing to myself. But you’re making my point for me, that at best calling for an IBB is an extremely subjective thing to do, and it seems that just as often as it works, it fails.

Unfortunately, not enough folks keep records with enough detail to actually establish meaningful tables that can be looked toward to help make decisions, like they have for the ML. Maybe one day we’ll have that, but until then, its just gonna have to be a lot of guesswork.

[mudvnine]

Well, it sure looks as though there’s definitely something amiss in the whole thing, doesn’t there. You’re calling the decisions made by some pretty fair coaches dumb, which is ok ‘casue I often say the same thing to myself. But you’re making my point for me, that at best calling for an IBB is an extremely subjective thing to do, and it seems that just as often as it works, it fails.

Unfortunately, not enough folks keep records with enough detail to actually establish meaningful tables that can be looked toward to help make decisions, like they have for the ML. Maybe one day we’ll have that, but until then, its just gonna have to be a lot of guesswork.

I still don't believe you understand the "intention" of the "intentional base on balls". It's done to put that defense in a more advantageous position than they were before the walk. It should be executed to create some type of force play, or combination of force plays, that IF properly executed, will prevent a run from scoring in a close game.

What the hitter following the IBB does is relatively insignificant, as theoretically, any hitter, at any time, could come up and poke a base hit through, even the kid hitting .125, so that's not really the point. The point is, should the next hitter hit the ball onto the ground, will we be in a better defensive position to prevent a run from scoring by walking the previous batter AND executing properly....not whether or not the hitter is better or worse than the previous one.

Interestingly enough, this past season, we didn't issue a single IBB.....although in hindsight, I wish I had in one instance, but that was not because the situation warranted it, but rather to "pitch around the stud" of the other team with one out, but that would have gone against my personal beliefs, so we pitch to him. Now this freshman kid would have been a varsity starter at our school, but the school he was at is a perennial powerhouse....this year they were CIF champs, so he stayed down.

Top of 7th of a tied game (they had trounced us 11-1 in our first meeting), with one out, in steps the man-child to the batter's box, we go right after him with our #2 pitcher and get....Foul, Strike (looking), Foul, the 0-2 CB that was supposed to be "in the dirt", found waaaay too much of the outside third of the plate, and left the park in RC field for a Homerun.....crap!!

We had a chance in the bottom of the 7th, but a base running error cost us dearly. First hitter (Ball, Ball, Ball, Strike (looking), Strike (swinging), Single).....second hitter (Ball, Sacrifice Bunt, [X Xxxxxx advances to Second].....third hitter (X Xxxxxx replaces X Xxxxxx on offense, Ball, Single, [X Xxxxxx Picked Off at Second]), dammit!!!.....fourth hitter (Strike (swinging), Ball, Ball, Fly out)....game over.

Couple more grey hairs in the head, and we move on to prepare for our next game......

[scorekeeper]

Because of this discussion, I was going to see what I could do to quantify how batters were doing relative to runners on base and in what bases they were on. But as I thought about it, I seemed to remember having done something similar this past year when I got the ability to track that data. Unfortunately, I forgot to “turn it on”, so it would run as part of the stat “package”. So, FWIW, here’s at least RBIs relative to runners.

I’ll check around some more to see what else I may have already done and forgot about. Comments are always welcome, even if they aren’t very complimentary.

checkrbis.pdf

[mudvnine]

Because of this discussion, I was going to see what I could do to quantify how batters were doing relative to runners on base and in what bases they were on. But as I thought about it, I seemed to remember having done something similar this past year when I got the ability to track that data. Unfortunately, I forgot to “turn it on”, so it would run as part of the stat “package”. So, FWIW, here’s at least RBIs relative to runners.

I’ll check around some more to see what else I may have already done and forgot about. Comments are always welcome, even if they aren’t very complimentary.

[ATTACH]110176[/ATTACH]

Interesting chart(s), that I think have some useful potential, but "thinking out loud".....shouldn't those "opportunities" be weighted? IOWs, a hitter that had 10 runners on 3rd base, has a better "opportunity" than a hitter that had his 10 runners on 1st base. No?

Maybe that's already taken into consideration in one of the sheets, but if it was, I failed to decipher it....

[scorekeeper]

I still don't believe you understand the "intention" of the "intentional base on balls". It's done to put that defense in a more advantageous position than they were before the walk. It should be executed to create some type of force play, or combination of force plays, that IF properly executed, will prevent a run from scoring in a close game.

Oh trust me. I completely understand the “intention” of an IBB. What you can’t believe is, I honestly don’t believe winning a game at any level below the ML is important enough to warrant it, compared to how important I believe it is for the players to get as much exposure as possible to the “gut checking” situations that people feel require them. It just a difference in philosophical perspective. No big deal.

What the hitter following the IBB does is relatively insignificant, as theoretically, any hitter, at any time, could come up and poke a base hit through, even the kid hitting .125, so that's not really the point. The point is, should the next hitter hit the ball onto the ground, will we be in a better defensive position to prevent a run from scoring by walking the previous batter AND executing properly....not whether or not the hitter is better or worse than the previous one.

In my mind, this is very much like sacrifice bunting, or even stealing bases. Its all about linear weights, which we don’t have at the HS level, so we tend to go by what they are for the ML, and its all about the odds of scoring a run in a particular situation, weighed against the value of a possible out. Its why the odd show a runner on 1st with no outs is more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with 1 out. There’s a lot more to it than that, but in the end a decision has to be made whether its worth giving up that out, or even risking it. The chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. The trouble is, the chances of scoring a run also go up, so one has to try to figure out which one is worth taking the chance on.

What it seems like in a an odd way, isn’t so much that its good training for the players, as much as it is for the manager. Since so much goes into the decision, it ends up becoming very much a skill. But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

[scorekeeper]

Interesting chart(s), that I think have some useful potential, but "thinking out loud".....shouldn't those "opportunities" be weighted? IOWs, a hitter that had 10 runners on 3rd base, has a better "opportunity" than a hitter that had his 10 runners on 1st base. No?

Maybe that's already taken into consideration in one of the sheets, but if it was, I failed to decipher it....

Not quite sure I’m following you, but its sure sounding a lot like you’re thinking linear weights whether you realize it or not. Trouble is, I have no way to develop a linear weight chart for HS because as far as I know, I’m the only one with anything close to enough data to do it, and therefore it wouldn’t exactly be much of a chart. It would be ok for our team, but for no one else’s.

However, because I’m an equal opportunity whacko, I’m more than willing to entertain factors that allow me to weigh the different states. FI, if its believed a batter should get an RBI 3 times as often if there’s a runner on 3 than a runner on 1st, and twice as often if there’s a runner on 2nd than 1st, that can be arranged. But I’d have no idea how to make that determination.

But keep in mind that those things are basically talking about RBIs and MRUs which are very different concepts.

[real green]

But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

It may be closer than you think. How tough would it be to add to game changer or i score the matrix needed to produce situational options corelated with odds of success? It could even be corelated to the players current stats given the scenario. Interesting!

[mudvnine]

Oh trust me. I completely understand the “intention” of an IBB. What you can’t believe is, I honestly don’t believe winning a game at any level below the ML is important enough to warrant it, compared to how important I believe it is for the players to get as much exposure as possible to the “gut checking” situations that people feel require them. It just a difference in philosophical perspective. No big deal.

So are you stating that only the pitchers should be exposed to "gut checking"....what about the infielders?

Sounds like in two of the situations you listed above, the infielder(s) failed the "gut check" placed upon them, by making an error, and/or not throwing to the correct base for the given situation.

And I can't think of a more "gut checking" situation for a pitcher than having to throw strikes after just having an IBB load the bases....regardless of the outs.

In my mind, this is very much like sacrifice bunting, or even stealing bases. Its all about linear weights, which we don’t have at the HS level, so we tend to go by what they are for the ML, and its all about the odds of scoring a run in a particular situation, weighed against the value of a possible out. Its why the odd show a runner on 1st with no outs is more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with 1 out. There’s a lot more to it than that, but in the end a decision has to be made whether its worth giving up that out, or even risking it. The chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. The trouble is, the chances of scoring a run also go up, so one has to try to figure out which one is worth taking the chance on.

I think you'd have to clarify the last sentence. Shouldn't it be, "the chances of scoring an [additional] run also go up"?

An IBB with runners on 2nd and 3rd doesn't change the "chances" of those runners scoring, unless the hitter coming to the plate after the IBB is a better hitter than the one that was just walked.....other than that, there's no change, in fact, as you stated, "chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out".

What it seems like in a an odd way, isn’t so much that its good training for the players, as much as it is for the manager. Since so much goes into the decision, it ends up becoming very much a skill. But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

Other than it changes the situation, and they must learn to recognize where their play is now.

Believe me, I've been in games where the fielder failed to recognize/realize/remember that the IBB just changed what he should do with the ball, and made the play as if it was the original, before the IBB situation.

Would have been really nice if he would have "learned" or "developed the skill", to know what to do with the ball as the situations in the games continually change.

[scorekeeper]

It may be closer than you think. How tough would it be to add to game changer or i score the matrix needed to produce situational options corelated with odds of success? It could even be corelated to the players current stats given the scenario. Interesting!

I don’t know about those passé applications, but I already have it ready to go, as soon as anyone can come up with the numbers.

[scorekeeper]

So are you stating that …

OK Mud, I’ve had enough. You and I don’t have the same philosophy about what we’re talking about, but now it seems as though you’re trying to embarrass me almost out of spitefulness. You go right on thinking the way you want, and I’ll go right on thinking the way I do. Its not worth getting angry over something that neither of us has the data to back up what they believe.

[mudvnine]

Not quite sure I’m following you, but its sure sounding a lot like you’re thinking linear weights whether you realize it or not. Trouble is, I have no way to develop a linear weight chart for HS because as far as I know, I’m the only one with anything close to enough data to do it, and therefore it wouldn’t exactly be much of a chart. It would be ok for our team, but for no one else’s.

However, because I’m an equal opportunity whacko, I’m more than willing to entertain factors that allow me to weigh the different states. FI, if its believed a batter should get an RBI 3 times as often if there’s a runner on 3 than a runner on 1st, and twice as often if there’s a runner on 2nd than 1st, that can be arranged. But I’d have no idea how to make that determination.

But keep in mind that those things are basically talking about RBIs and MRUs which are very different concepts.

I'm not sure what I'm talking about technically, but here's what I'm thinking that maybe you can figure out what I mean....

When a hitter is at the plate with a runner on 3rd, he can do several things to be credited for an RBI, that the hitter with only a runner on 1st cannot.

For instance....

• Long, deep fly for an out....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• GB out to the 2nd baseman playing in his "normal" position....RBI with a runner on third, nothing (with the exception of a potential DP) with a runner on 1st.
• Single to LF....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• Etc., etc....

So I don't know if it's a "3 times" thing, but it is theoretically easier to earn an RBI the closer the runner is to the plate, so it only make sense (to me), that the guy that can get the ones in that are further from the plate, should get a little more credit than the guy that gets all of his with his guys standing on 3rd.

IOWs, maybe not all RBIs are created equal....as I said, "just thinking out loud".