The Blanton Ripoff

[bjoak]

Originally posted by rkulaski:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:



I'd also bet the farm that every NFBC overall WINNER to date actually WATCHES his fair share of MLB baseball along with tracking the stats.



~Lance No offense lance, but this isn't fantasy football.



While someone is watching a 3 hr game tonight, I'll accomplish A LOT more researching some players that have caught my eye and reading daily baseball info and news. Couldn't agree more with gekko when he replied to this.



ALSO, when Greg or Tom has interviewed the overall champ, do you ever here them say "what really helped me win the 100k was watching baseball every night and evaluating and scouting players every night"??



I'd BET the farm the overall champ is the overall champ because of:

1) good draft and FAAB pickups based upon a combination of skill AND luck (i.e. Cliff Lee ,etc) and his team stayed relatively healthy. it's that simple.



Gekko, a top 10 finisher (twice?), says he doesn't watch much baseball on tv at all. I don't care if he finished 1st, 5th, or 9th twice. The point is I'm sure he was only 1-2 players missed here or there or 1 or 2 injuries here or there that cost him the title. I HIGHLY DOUBT he missed the 100k because he did NOT watch enough baseball on tv.



My point is... in the NFBC, scouting the players with your own eyes won't make a difference whether you win or lose. This isn't fantasy football. [/QUOTE]Much as I'm a stats guy,



1) it takes all types and

2) we're a little beyond the point where we claim one side is wrong and the other is right, at least not in everything. I use scouting information and it helps me.

[TOXIC ASSETS]

Over 250 pots here and counless analysis, but here is all you really need to know:



44.1 innings - 57 hits, 8 homers allowed - 17 walks - 37 K's.





BLANTON SUCKS!!!!!

[TOXIC ASSETS]

I wish I could type early in the morning.



Over 250 POSTS here and countless analysis, but here is all you really need to know:



44.1 innings - 57 hits, 8 homers allowed - 17 walks - 37 K's.





BLANTON SUCKS!!!!!

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Not to actually insert reality into this conversation...but



Winning your league when the league money goes to the overall is not a big win at all.



Coming in 5th or 6th place in the overall when there is such a wicked steep drop in each placing is not so hot either (as you well know).



If you factored in your expenses (and NOT EVEN YOUR TIME)...you very well could be a loser overall playing in the NFBC (with all of the leagues you've played to date)...even with your respectable success, GG. (14.5 grand ain't your "profit"...that I know.)



I'm sure you are well aware of this already.



2nd and 3rd place overall is not too bad...5th on sucks.



League winnings are just above break even propositions at best when you include expenses. (if you indeed have to travel/take days off/taxes)



~Lance lance - have you EVER won an NFBC or NFFC league or have you sucked EVERY year? discounting ALL NFBC league winners, really??? are you really that jealous and bitter?



i'm guessing you are probably something like minus $100,000 if you count all your entry fees, travel expenses, mlb package , etc...

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by rkulaski:

While someone is watching a 3 hr game tonight, I'll accomplish A LOT more researching some players that have caught my eye and reading daily baseball info and news. Couldn't agree more with gekko when he replied to this.



ALSO, when Greg or Tom has interviewed the overall champ, do you ever here them say "what really helped me win the 100k was watching baseball every night and evaluating and scouting players every night"??



I'd BET the farm the overall champ is the overall champ because of:

1) good draft and FAAB pickups based upon a combination of skill AND luck (i.e. Cliff Lee ,etc) and his team stayed relatively healthy. it's that simple.



Gekko, a top 10 finisher (twice?), says he doesn't watch much baseball on tv at all. I don't care if he finished 1st, 5th, or 9th twice. The point is I'm sure he was only 1-2 players missed here or there or 1 or 2 injuries here or there that cost him the title. I HIGHLY DOUBT he missed the 100k because he did NOT watch enough baseball on tv.



My point is... in the NFBC, scouting the players with your own eyes won't make a difference whether you win or lose. This isn't fantasy football. D-I-T-T-O

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

That's all fine and dandy.



It would suck balls if the overall winner doesn't even watch the sport.



So far, to the best of my knowledge...fans of baseball (and that includes WATCHING)...have been the CHAMPIONS.



I sure hope that trend continues.



~Lance you're off again lance. my best friend "Moneymaker" (went to the same high school, were in each other's weddings) WON THE OVERALL NFBC and was big into cruching numbers. maybe even bigger than me a few years ago. i don't think he watched many games.



honestly, who gives a crap (beside you) how many games you watch?



now, you can go back to "sucking balls"!

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

He's a grinder.



Grinders chip away at small computer calculated odds.



Grinders don't win championships...they just grind. ...and they try to get YOU to grind...so they can out-grind you!

maybe this is why you left sunday without a replacement for Weeks. you were watching the mlb package too much and NOT doing your proper homework. lance, give it up, it can only get worse for you

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

He's a grinder.



Grinders chip away at small computer calculated odds.



Grinders don't win championships...they just grind. ...and they try to get YOU to grind...so they can out-grind you!



(If you keep listening to Gekko



(You'll never kick Teddy KGB's ass!) lance - you must be off your meds or drinking or both!



to do well at a 26 week contest with daily games, YOU HAVE TO BE A GRINDER. ANYONE WHO HAS HAD SUCCESS IN THE NFBC OVERALL UNDERSTANDS THAT. i don't think you understand it because from what i've seen you haven't made the committment yet.



as for me being a grinder, a take more chances than ANYONE ELSE. all you have to do is take a look at my drafts to understand that.



you think the mlb package is going to make up for something lacking in your nfbc prep. you'll end up being wrong, and then you'll move on to the next biggest thing.



NOTHING takes the place of doing your own research. NOTHING.



have a good one

[Crazy Like a Fox]

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote:Originally posted by Crazy Like a Fox:

Apparently in 2006 when he gave up 241 hits in 194 innings he was unlucky. In 2008 pitching in a great pitcher's park he gave up 145 hits in 127 innings. In 2009, again, incredibly "unlucky" to give up 57 hits in 45 innings. All's I'm saying is at some point you can throw the luck factor out the door. The guy gives up a lot of hits.



BA against can fluctuate quite a bit but one thing's for sure, the elite pitchers don't give up very many hits, period. With your logic all elite pitchers are lucky?



Apparently there aren't any hard to hit pitchers, only lucky to hit pitchers. Couple things...



#1 I was ballparking a hit an inning, the better way to look at it is BABIP



(hits - HR) / (AB - K - HR)



basically, batting average on balls in play. League average is usually .290-.310. Hitters establish their own level, pitchers USUALLY regress to .300, with some exceptions.



Blanton



2005 .255 LUCKY

2006 .337 UNLUCKY

2007 .306

2008 .297

2009 .350



His LD% ranged from 18-20.4% the first 4 years. It is now 26% driving that .350 BABIP.



Am I 100% positive his LD% and BABIP will come down? No, I can't be sure.



Does history suggest it will?



Yes.



#2 With respect to elite pitchers not giving up a lot of hits...



Johan's career BABIP is .287

Lincecum's is .316

Halladay is .298

Peavy is .294

Hamels is .288

Sabathia is .296

Pedro's was .291



It is likely lost in the shuffle, but earlier in the thread I suggested I believe pitchers exhibit some level of control over BABIP that goes beyond Fb% and GB%.



BUT....



An elite pitcher is an elite pitcher because he STRIKES GUYS OUT and secondarily keeps the ball in the yard.



The more strikeouts, the fewer balls in play, the fewer balls in play, the fewer hits he gives up.



Totally rough math here...



If a guys strikes out 50 fewer hitters over the course of the season, he needs 50 more outs. If 30% of batted balls go for hits, then in order to get 50 outs on batted balls, he needed to face 71 hitters, meaning 21 got hits.



REAL ROUGH ESTIMATES



50 more K = 21 fewer hits.



THAT's why elite pitchers give up fewer hits. [/QUOTE]I understand BABIP. I knew you would mention K's as the only reason for less hits given up. And while it's true it does factor in, greatly, it still doesn't take away the fact that some pitchers are tough to get hits off of. In your examples of elite pitchers, you only mention strikeout pitchers.



Greg Maddux from 1991-1998 had one of the most dominant pitching stretches ever. His K/9 was no where near the guys you mentioned, but gave up very, very few hits, 8 years in a row. How could this happen? How could somebody who isn't a strikeout artist be so lucky? The obvious answer is, it wasn't luck. He was a master out there. Hitters kept guessing as to what he would throw and where he would throw it. Incredible curve, change, and most important of all, location, location, location. He also had incredible movement on his fastball, something that won't show up in your stats. When hitters did get wood on it, they didn't hit it hard.



My point is, these things don't show up in your stats. Many solid e.r.a./whip guys come along who don't have superb strikeout numbers, but also don't give up very many hits, and if they do, they aren't doubles off the wall or too many balls over the fence. It's just tough for hitter's to get good wood on it because they are off balance. In fact, using Maddux as an example earlier, started out with his own words, "trying to strikeout everybody". Once he "learned" how to pitch, he became one of the best pitchers ever, an "elite" amongst elite, without ever needing to strikeout anybody. He sure didn't give up too many hits either, and that ain't luck, no matter what BAPIP says.



That's just my take. Your numbers might disagree, but that's my opinion. I don't think numbers explain the whole story like you. There's more to it. But I respect your opinion.



[ May 22, 2009, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Crazy Like a Fox ]

[The Phoenix]

Greg Maddux 1991-1998



Year SO--Rank

1991 198--2nd

1992 199--3rd

1993 197--3rd

1994 156--3rd

1995 181--3rd

1997 177--9th

1998 204--5th



He wasn't a strikeout pitcher?!



K/9 over that stretch 6.9 k/9.



That's not close to the 7 k/9 Gekko mentions?



BB/9 over that stretch 1.6 bb/9!!!!!



This isn't the real secret of his success?!



I would find a pitcher with far worse peripheral stats that possesses the mystical, "he's hard to hit", stuff to counter the arguments of Gekko and Zola because the numbers tell a good bit of the story with Maddux and you've found another pitcher for their side of the discussion



[ May 22, 2009, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: The Phoenix ]

[Scott Boras]

Originally posted by The Phoenix:

Greg Maddux 1991-1998



Year SO--Rank

1991 198--2nd

1992 199--3rd

1993 197--3rd

1994 156--3rd

1995 181--3rd

1997 177--9th

1998 204--5th



He wasn't a strikeout pitcher?!



K/9 over that stretch 6.9 k/9.



That's not close to the 7 k/9 Gekko mentions?



BB/9 over that stretch 1.6 bb/9!!!!!



This isn't the real secret of his success?!



I would find a pitcher with far worse peripheral stats that possesses the mystical, "he's hard to hit", stuff to counter the arguments of Gekko and Zola because the numbers tell a good bit of the story with Maddux and you've found another pitcher for their side of the discussion He said Greg Maddux, but maybe he meant to say Tom Glavine? He fits the argument much better and is a prime example of a player that pure stat heads have said was "done" for nearly a decade and for nearly a decade the stat mongers were wrong. He defied and baffled them for years until the wheels finally started to come off late in 07. All Crazy is trying to say is what Twain said- stats don't always tell the entire picture every time. There are elements that stats can't account for (yet). Very few stats are absolute harbingers of success to come. As Zola said- when analyzed correctly, they increase odds. Nothing more. Gut instinct, history, and visual scouting are still alive and well in this game.

[ToddZ]

Originally posted by Crazy Like a Fox:

I understand BABIP. I knew you would mention K's as the only reason for less hits given up. You are putting words in my mouth -- I never said ONLY. In fact, right before I showed why more strikeouts equals fewer hits, I specifically said



"It is likely lost in the shuffle, but earlier in the thread I suggested I believe pitchers exhibit some level of control over BABIP that goes beyond Fb% and GB%."





Originally posted by Crazy Like a Fox:

And while it's true it does factor in, greatly, it still doesn't take away the fact that some pitchers are tough to get hits off of. In your examples of elite pitchers, you only mention strikeout pitchers.



Greg Maddux from 1991-1998 had one of the most dominant pitching stretches ever. His K/9 was no where near the guys you mentioned, but gave up very, very few hits, 8 years in a row. How could this happen? How could somebody who isn't a strikeout artist be so lucky? The obvious answer is, it wasn't luck. He was a master out there. Hitters kept guessing as to what he would throw and where he would throw it. Incredible curve, change, and most important of all, location, location, location. He also had incredible movement on his fastball, something that won't show up in your stats. When hitters did get wood on it, they didn't hit it hard.

And as I just stated, I agree. But the reason I listed strikeout pitchers as elite is the VAST OVERWHELMING majority of elite pitchers are strikeout pitchers. Maddux is the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.



Originally posted by Crazy Like a Fox:

My point is, these things don't show up in your stats. Many solid e.r.a./whip guys come along who don't have superb strikeout numbers, but also don't give up very many hits, and if they do, they aren't doubles off the wall or too many balls over the fence. It's just tough for hitter's to get good wood on it because they are off balance. In fact, using Maddux as an example earlier, started out with his own words, "trying to strikeout everybody". Once he "learned" how to pitch, he became one of the best pitchers ever, an "elite" amongst elite, without ever needing to strikeout anybody. He sure didn't give up too many hits either, and that ain't luck, no matter what BAPIP says.



That's just my take. Your numbers might disagree, but that's my opinion. I don't think numbers explain the whole story like you. There's more to it. But I respect your opinion. Problem is, you continue to either gloss over or completely ignore the primary point of my argument.



What statistical analysis does is use probability to demonstrate what should happen, or perhaps better said what is MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN. It does not, and nowhere have I claimed that it DICTATES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!



For the sake of the rest of this, I will call stat analysis objective and the scouting/gut feel aspect subjective.



The first step is deciding if you wish to include some objective analysis, and if so, to what extent.



Some prefer to go mostly on what they see, that's there prerogative. Others prefer to trust their spreadsheets implicitly, again, that's their right.



What we are discussing is the in-between.



Objective analysis says what is MOST LIKELY to happen.



What makes this fun is how we each apply our own subjective analysis.



Crazy -- what you are doing is cherry-picking Maddux and James Loney and saying that subjective analysis (Maddux hard to hit, Loney low OBP and slow)was the way to go. But what you are not doing is sharing your subjective analysis on the other 749 active players and showing your gut feel and scouting ability trumps the objective analysis. Who knows, maybe it does. As I said earlier, I believe that this ability exists and I also believe many people think they have it but they don't. But cherry-picking an exception or two does not really make a point other than to confirm what we stat-heads already know, there are exceptions.



As an aside, my projections are by no means 100% objective, I season in subjectivity when I feel it is warranted.



I'm making this number up but if statistical analysis says 100 players with Loney's or Maddux' raw numbers say you get "X" result 70% of the time, if I choose to accept that and use it, I would have been right 70 out of 100 times. The other 30 you would be pointing out on these forums



My level of risk profile, my philosophy is to accept that 70% or whatever (in most cases, it is higher).



Yeah, I will miss out on these that subjectively nailed the exceptions.



But my philosophy is making sound decisions should put me in contention every time. Then it is up to my grinding and other factors to take care of the rest.



Others prefer to use more subjectivity. If they truly have a gift and can do better than probability, they admittedly have an edge over me and I have to hope they get some misfortune.



If someone uses subjectivity and happens to nail it that time, kudos, you beat me.



But next time, you'll probably miss it and I beat you.

[ToddZ]

And before I am called on it, my struggles in the 15-team Main Event were not making sound strategic decisions as I admittedly was behind the curve of the nuances of a draft format and a shallower mixed format. It was not so much poor player forecasting.



In other formats, the philosophy of putting myself in a position to compete and seeing what happens has served me quite well.

[Buster]

Todd:



No one is (or should be) questioning your successes in the NFBC or elsewhere. Indeed in this thread, other than Gekko, I don't think anyone has discussed who has, or hasn't been successful, in the NFBC.



Your stellar reputation proceeds you.



I think with Blanton, the thought (at least my thought) is that despite his K/9 IP numbers, and his BB/9 IP numbers, the guy just isn't very good. While ERA and WHIP may be more a function of luck than K/9 IP and BB/9 IP are, those former numbers are hard to ignore.



To call an average pitcher with good K/BB numbers "unlucky," or worse yet, to say that he has been "ripped off," seems a stretch.



The majority, perhaps even the vast majority, of pitchers with similar K/BB numbers are effective. I'd buy that.



Blanton just may be the proverbial exception that proves the rule.



Buster

[ToddZ]

Just hoping he goes from suckitude to serviceable.



Of course, serviceable is relative.



To me, the biggest issue with Blanton is I am a BIG believer in home-field advantage when it comes to spot-starting/streaming. Taking out the park factor, on the average a player's skills are 10% better at home. That is, if every park played the same, a player's home stats would on the average be 10% better than his road stats.



If my argument is Blanton is throwing fine, it is bad luck causing his troubles, then it does not make sense to keep him reserved until his luck changes. Luck doesn't work that way. If a guy is working through some mechanical issues that is different.



But with Blanton, I lose my personal comfort zone of starting him at home, as his park mitigates the 10% from above and we are back to square one.



The irony of this whole discussion, at least for me with respect to Blanton is he does not fit the type of profile I personally like to deploy when streaming pitchers. I prefer Kevin Correia or Jonathan Sanchez to Blanton as I have the comfort zone of their home parks.



So I guess what I am saying is while I feel going forward, Blanton will be someone that can be spotted judiciously, it won't be for me as I am a big proponent of home field streaming.

[Dub]

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Just hoping he goes from suckitude to serviceable.



Of course, serviceable is relative.



To me, the biggest issue with Blanton is I am a BIG believer in home-field advantage when it comes to spot-starting/streaming. Taking out the park factor, on the average a player's skills are 10% better at home. That is, if every park played the same, a player's home stats would on the average be 10% better than his road stats.



If my argument is Blanton is throwing fine, it is bad luck causing his troubles, then it does not make sense to keep him reserved until his luck changes. Luck doesn't work that way. If a guy is working through some mechanical issues that is different.



But with Blanton, I lose my personal comfort zone of starting him at home, as his park mitigates the 10% from above and we are back to square one.



The irony of this whole discussion, at least for me with respect to Blanton is he does not fit the type of profile I personally like to deploy when streaming pitchers. I prefer Kevin Correia or Jonathan Sanchez to Blanton as I have the comfort zone of their home parks.



So I guess what I am saying is while I feel going forward, Blanton will be someone that can be spotted judiciously, it won't be for me as I am a big proponent of home field streaming. Todd:



Crazy brought up Maddoux as an example and you stated that Maddoux (or Glavine) is an "exception to the rule" or how I would characterize as two standard deviations from the mean.



Have you stopped and considered that maybe Blanton is an exception to the rule on the other side of the hump?



Kinds Regards.



Keith





PS: I think a combination of scouting and statistics is the way to go. For example, you can always spot when a pitcher is not ready for the bigs, even though his stats say he is. You are in my league in the OC (at-least one of your teams) and you are doing very well- two big weeks in a row.



[ May 22, 2009, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Dub ]

[ToddZ]

Originally posted by Dub:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Just hoping he goes from suckitude to serviceable.



Of course, serviceable is relative.



To me, the biggest issue with Blanton is I am a BIG believer in home-field advantage when it comes to spot-starting/streaming. Taking out the park factor, on the average a player's skills are 10% better at home. That is, if every park played the same, a player's home stats would on the average be 10% better than his road stats.



If my argument is Blanton is throwing fine, it is bad luck causing his troubles, then it does not make sense to keep him reserved until his luck changes. Luck doesn't work that way. If a guy is working through some mechanical issues that is different.



But with Blanton, I lose my personal comfort zone of starting him at home, as his park mitigates the 10% from above and we are back to square one.



The irony of this whole discussion, at least for me with respect to Blanton is he does not fit the type of profile I personally like to deploy when streaming pitchers. I prefer Kevin Correia or Jonathan Sanchez to Blanton as I have the comfort zone of their home parks.



So I guess what I am saying is while I feel going forward, Blanton will be someone that can be spotted judiciously, it won't be for me as I am a big proponent of home field streaming. Todd:



Crazy brought up Maddoux as an example and you stated that Maddoux (or Glavine) is an "exception to the rule" or how I would characterize as two standard deviations from the mean.



Have you stopped and considered that maybe Blanton is an exception to the rule on the other side of the hump?



Kinds Regards.



Keith





PS: I think a combination of scouting and statistics is the way to go. For example, you can always spot when a pitcher is not ready for the bigs, even though his stats say he is. You are in my league in the OC (at-least one of your teams) and you are doing very well- two big weeks in a row. [/QUOTE]Problem with considering Blanton an exception is we have 20 years of data for Maddux. We have 6 weeks of anomalous data for Blanton. For his career, his skills have resulted in expected performance.



Some consider Javier Vazquez as someone whose peripherals were always better than the final results, he could be the exception. Except he is having a helluva year. Aside from the change to Atlanta, is he a different pitcher?



This is, as they say, why we play the game.

[sportsbettingman]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

He's a grinder.



Grinders chip away at small computer calculated odds.



Grinders don't win championships...they just grind. ...and they try to get YOU to grind...so they can out-grind you!



(If you keep listening to Gekko



(You'll never kick Teddy KGB's ass!) lance - you must be off your meds or drinking or both!



to do well at a 26 week contest with daily games, YOU HAVE TO BE A GRINDER. ANYONE WHO HAS HAD SUCCESS IN THE NFBC OVERALL UNDERSTANDS THAT. i don't think you understand it because from what i've seen you haven't made the committment yet.



as for me being a grinder, a take more chances than ANYONE ELSE. all you have to do is take a look at my drafts to understand that.



you think the mlb package is going to make up for something lacking in your nfbc prep. you'll end up being wrong, and then you'll move on to the next biggest thing.



NOTHING takes the place of doing your own research. NOTHING.



have a good one [/QUOTE]C'mon Gekko!



I'm filling your plate with killer MB karma and you don't even see it!



If I praise you...you'd slump...when I play with you...your team will get hot!



...and yes...the Russian Vodka had my tounge last night!

[DOUGHBOYS]

The saga of Joe Blanton continues....



Joe has a Bubba body, but growing up he was scrawny. Though his mom, Mable, worked as the lunch lady at his school, she could not protect young, little Joey.

Bullies at the school found him to be an easy target. It was the first time, but not the last, that Joe would be called "very hittable".



[ May 23, 2009, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

[KJ Duke]

Joe Blanton is sitting a 4-run lead, facing a home run hitter in a home run hitters' park with two on and two out. Could it be he's just thinking, "try to strike him out, and don't walk him, because everything else is just luck".



Much credit for Greg Maddux's pitching success goes to his intelligence ... setting hitters up, recognizing what they are more or less likely to be expecting in a given situation, and knowing their weaknesses.



If there's any truth in this - that intelligence is a success factor - there's got to be a ying to maddux' yang. Hello "Blanton effect".



Might you pick this up by watching the game? Yep. And it might just be disguised as bad luck in a box score.

[Glenneration X]

....and on the 6th day, Shandler looked down on his creation and said let there be Zola, who he created in his own image. He then took the rib of Zola and from this rib he made Gekko, so that Zola could have a companion.

....and Shandler smiled.

He gave Zola and Gekko paradise, but heeded them to beware the offerings of Crazy, who will attempt to seduce them with gifts of apples, and scouting, and the MLB-TV package.



....and on the 7th day, Shandler rested.



-The Book of James (Bill) 1:10

[Gordon Gekko II]

ROFLMAO



Good one!!

[Crazy Like a Fox]

Originally posted by G-X:

....and on the 6th day, Shandler looked down on his creation and said let there be Zola, who he created in his own image. He then took the rib of Zola and from this rib he made Gekko, so that Zola could have a companion.

....and Shandler smiled.

He gave Zola and Gekko paradise, but heeded them to beware the offerings of Crazy, who will attempt to seduce them with gifts of apples, and scouting, and the MLB-TV package.



....and on the 7th day, Shandler rested.



-The Book of James (Bill) 1:10 Love it.

[Dub]

Big test tonight. Everyone will be tunning in. An 8 share nationwide.

[Gordon Gekko II]

Originally posted by Dub:

Big test tonight. Everyone will be tunning in. An 8 share nationwide. ROFLMAO!!!! "8 share"