Options
Best player ever from each team
garnettstyle
Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
According to this article Ron Santo is the best Cubs player in history. Are you kidding me? He was better than Ernie Banks or Billy Williams?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/best-player-ever-to-play-for-each-mlb-franchise/ss-BBpPjbm
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/best-player-ever-to-play-for-each-mlb-franchise/ss-BBpPjbm
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
0
Comments
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
And as always, please note that "better than" refers to everything the player does, not just his hitting. Billy Williams may have been the best hitter in Cubs history, but his contributions on defense were non-existent; all of the others contributed a great deal defensively in addition to their contributions at the plate.
Bill James rates Sandberg, Banks, Santo and Williams at 58, 77, 87 and 100, respectively, on his all-time top 100 (through 1999; includes pitchers and Negro Leaguers). I think it's clear that Santo was better than Williams, and I also agree that Sandberg was better than all of them. Whether Banks or Santo was better than the other is a very close call, and depends on how you weight peak performance vs. average or career level performance. James weights peak performance heavily and Banks was better than Santo at their peaks so Banks wins. But Banks was only great for a short time and Santo has several more excellent years; it wouldn't take much of a tweak to get Santo ahead of Banks.
And as always, please note that "better than" refers to everything the player does, not just his hitting. Billy Williams may have been the best hitter in Cubs history, but his contributions on defense were non-existent; all of the others contributed a great deal defensively in addition to their contributions at the plate.
Totally disagree. Santo is a borderline HOFer. I would place him last over the other 4 guys. Santo never came close to winning a MVP award.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Totally disagree. Santo is a borderline HOFer. I would place him last over the other 4 guys. Santo never came close to winning a MVP award.
He led the NL in WAR in 1967, so he may have won with the voters of today.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Totally disagree. Santo is a borderline HOFer. I would place him last over the other 4 guys. Santo never came close to winning a MVP award.
He led the NL in WAR in 1967, so he may have won with the voters of today.
Indeed. Stats are a lot more advanced (and revealing) now than they were years ago. That is why many people have the misconceptions they do from paying attention to only those stats on the back of a baseball card.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Bill James rates Sandberg, Banks, Santo and Williams at 58, 77, 87 and 100, respectively, on his all-time top 100 (through 1999; includes pitchers and Negro Leaguers). I think it's clear that Santo was better than Williams, and I also agree that Sandberg was better than all of them. Whether Banks or Santo was better than the other is a very close call, and depends on how you weight peak performance vs. average or career level performance. James weights peak performance heavily and Banks was better than Santo at their peaks so Banks wins. But Banks was only great for a short time and Santo has several more excellent years; it wouldn't take much of a tweak to get Santo ahead of Banks.
And as always, please note that "better than" refers to everything the player does, not just his hitting. Billy Williams may have been the best hitter in Cubs history, but his contributions on defense were non-existent; all of the others contributed a great deal defensively in addition to their contributions at the plate.
I am in utter shock that Dallas is actually typing that more than one player was better than Ron Santo!
Ron should certainly be in the HOF in my opinion.
Santo had seven seasons at or above .844 OPS and nine OPS+ over 122. Three other at or above .775/109.
Sandberg had six seasons at or above .840/131, three other at or above .741/108.
Williams had six seasons at or above .840. Ten seasons at or above 120 OPS+. Eight seasons other at or above .800 Five at or above 120 OPS+.
Arguing about who was the best (hitter) seems foolish. Explaining how three are in HOF and Santo is not...............is impossible. Because of no MVP's?
Santo was elected in 2012, overdue but he's in.
Orioles - Cal Ripken over Brooks Robinson
Dodgers - Don Drysdale over Sandy Koufax
Pirates - Honus Wagner over Roberto Clemente
Expos - Gary Carter over Tim Raines
Giants - Willie Mays over Barry Bonds
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
No problems with those four
mark
Me neither, but you can certainly make a case for the other 5.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
No problems with those four
mark
Me neither, but you can certainly make a case for the other 5.
I see you added a fifth. I still see all five as mortal locks
I like Bench over Rose for a quite a few reasons. Really not that close. Bench usually is regarded as a top 20 player of all time. Rose is nowhere near that.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Santo was elected in 2012, overdue but he's in.
oops, missed it.
No problems with those four
mark
Me neither, but you can certainly make a case for the other 5.
I see you added a fifth. I still see all five as mortal locks
I like Bench over Rose for a quite a few reasons. Really not that close. Bench usually is regarded as a top 20 player of all time. Rose is nowhere near that.
mark
Rose is a top 20 player in my opinion. He holds many records.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
No problems with those four
mark
Me neither, but you can certainly make a case for the other 5.
I see you added a fifth. I still see all five as mortal locks
I like Bench over Rose for a quite a few reasons. Really not that close. Bench usually is regarded as a top 20 player of all time. Rose is nowhere near that.
mark
Rose is a top 20 player in my opinion. He holds many records.
Sabr and James have Joe Morgan ahead of Rose. James does have Rose ahead of Bench which is a head scratcher for me.
I hated the Reds growing up and the likes of Morgan, Bench and Perez struck fear in my heart. Rose never did. Not in the least.
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
People remember the guy who had the 44 game hitting streak.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Rose has the second most popular record of all time (and maybe even the most popular now that Bonds has desecrated the HR record), due in large part, of course, to his longevity and writing himself into the lineup those last few years, but he is one of the more overrated players of the post-war era. Both Morgan and Bench were better than Rose.
Agree!
Some other interesting picks in the article for discussion.
Orioles - Cal Ripken over Brooks Robinson
Dodgers - Don Drysdale over Sandy Koufax
Pirates - Honus Wagner over Roberto Clemente
Expos - Gary Carter over Tim Raines
Giants - Willie Mays over Barry Bonds
I agree with all of these, too. The gap from Honus Wagner - one of the best players in history - is enormous down to Clemente. Good debates to be had on the others, though. I'm not sure how they handled players who changed teams; Frank Robinson is the best player who played for the Orioles, but if you count only his Orioles years, then Ripken would be my choice. But, if that's the case, then I'd pick Raines over Carter, counting only their years as Expos.
Murray did more offensively over 13 seasons with the Orioles than Brooks did in 22 seasons.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
My reasoning is simple. Every one was hitting against a defense comprised of slow white guys(on average, though there are always exceptions). There were no Ozzie Smiths' playing then.
I would guess Honus Wagners' range was awful compared to what we see today. And there uniforms look like they weighed 20lbs. Gloves were terrible.
When comparing era's you need to adjust for a steadily climbing average athletic ability ratio over the years.
Wagner may have been better than Clemente, but I bet its a lot closer than you might think.
Clemente would have hit .400 several times back then with his speed.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
dallas- in all your statistical analysis, do you ever consider it was a lot easier to get on base 80-100 years ago.
My reasoning is simple. Every one was hitting against a defense comprised of slow white guys(on average, though there are always exceptions). There were no Ozzie Smiths' playing then.
I would guess Honus Wagners' range was awful compared to what we see today. And there uniforms look like they weighed 20lbs. Gloves were terrible.
When comparing era's you need to adjust for a steadily climbing average athletic ability ratio over the years.
Wagner may have been better than Clemente, but I bet its a lot closer than you might think.
Clemente would have hit .400 several times back then with his speed.
Of course I consider it, but obviously there's a lot of different ways to do so and no way to know for sure which is correct. But Wagner was the best in the game for a very long time, so what you're really saying is that Clemente - maybe the 5th best player in the majors for his career, and a mile and a half from the top 3 - was better than anyone who played in Wagner's era. Again, no way to say for sure that you're wrong about that, but I don't see any reason to think that you're correct, either.
I prefer to think of it as Wagner was playing a different game than Clemente; saddled with pathetic gloves, heavy uniforms, facing spitballs in stadiums with no lights as the sun went down, etc. But it was baseball, however it was played, and Wagner played his version of baseball better than Clemente played his version. Wagner's range at short, by the way, was exceptional, although the joke of a glove he wore certainly led to more errors. And a big part of why I think Wagner was so much better than Clemente is that Clemente was actually not fast at all and had limited range even in the outfield. He couldn't have played shortstop at the major league level without embarrassing himself, while Wagner was far too good at shortstop to waste his skills playing right field. I think Wagner tops Clemente, easily, as a hitter, but I think that the two are so far apart as total players that they shouldn't even be compared.
Orioles should be- Cal Ripken over Eddie Murray, not Brooks Robinson.
Murray did more offensively over 13 seasons with the Orioles than Brooks did in 22 seasons.
Murray would probably be the Orioles pick if he played his whole career in Baltimore.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Don't sell Ripken short; best hitter would be Murray (if he played his whole career in Baltimore), but best player was Ripken. Of course, in the "if he played his whole career here" game, Frank Robinson is the clear winner.
And to add to the Pirates debate, I forgot about Arky Vaughan, the second-best Pirate. Clemente is a reasonable pick for third, but he's much closer to Stargell and Waner (no shame in that) than to Wagner and Vaughan. Interestingly, both Stargell and Waner were better hitters than Clemente, but it's Clemente's fielding that separates him from them. But we're talking outfielders, and once you introduce infielders like Wagner and Vaughan who also hit better than Clemente, the separation is quick and significant.
According to this list, Clemente is much closer to Wagner than what you think.
13. Wagner
20. Clemente
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
According to this list, Clemente is much closer to Wagner than what you think.
13. Wagner
20. Clemente
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml
Bill James has Wagner at number two all time. Clemente at number 74.
I'm with James on this one
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
According to this list, Clemente is much closer to Wagner than what you think.
13. Wagner
20. Clemente
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml
Bill James has Wagner at number two all time. Clemente at number 74.
I'm with James on this one
mark
Another list
10. Clemente
14. Wagner
http://www.rantsports.com/mlb/2015/05/15/50-greatest-players-in-mlb-history/
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
According to this list, Clemente is much closer to Wagner than what you think.
13. Wagner
20. Clemente
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml
Bill James has Wagner at number two all time. Clemente at number 74.
I'm with James on this one
mark
Another list
10. Clemente
14. Wagner
http://www.rantsports.com/mlb/...layers-in-mlb-history/
I give you Bills James and you give me RantSports. Too funny. That's par for the course.
Could you take the trouble to learn how to properly link your HTTP links?
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
According to this list, Clemente is much closer to Wagner than what you think.
13. Wagner
20. Clemente
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml
Bill James has Wagner at number two all time. Clemente at number 74.
I'm with James on this one
mark
Another list
10. Clemente
14. Wagner
http://www.rantsports.com/mlb/...layers-in-mlb-history/
I give you Bills James and you give me RantSports. Too funny. That's par for the course.
Yes 2 different opinions. Point?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There is no point, Marc, lol, just misconceptions.
Therantsports Top 50 rankings was written by the Jason Fletcher. Smirk.
He had Pete Rose at number 9 all time. Chuckle. Actually I'm going to chuckle some more.
Yes Tim, misconceptions ; )
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
There is no point, Marc, lol, just misconceptions.
Therantsports Top 50 rankings was written by the Jason Fletcher. Smirk.
He had Pete Rose at number 9 all time. Chuckle. Actually I'm going to chuckle some more.
Yes Tim, misconceptions ; )
mark
I laughed at Wagner at #2 and Mark McGwire ahead of Clemente.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Yes, technically, what we're talking about is 2 different opinions. But James' "opinion" is the result of a decade of statistical analysis, vetted by many others, and he's published his methodology which has been taken up by countless others. At the margins, some of what James does is "opinion", but James pointed out many cases where his opinion of a player's ranking before he began his analysis turned out to be wrong. In other words, James and Fletcher both had opinions; James tested his against the facts and admitted some of his opinions were wrong. Jason Fletcher didn't do that; Fletcher sat down and wrote a list of names and published it. He's free to believe that Clemente was better than Wagner, but if he attempted to demonstrate with facts that Clemente was better than Wagner he would fail, and fail miserably. In fact, if he sat down to debate the topic with James, I have no doubt at all that James would change his mind.
There is no point, Marc, lol, just misconceptions.
Therantsports Top 50 rankings was written by the Jason Fletcher. Smirk.
He had Pete Rose at number 9 all time. Chuckle. Actually I'm going to chuckle some more.
Yes Tim, misconceptions ; )
mark
While I personally agree that Rose at #9 is too high, that's just an opinion. Rose played for a very long time, and was very good for much longer than most players. If you place a whole lot of value on that, and less on how great a player was in very best years, then it's possible to rank Rose that high. So I disagree with that ranking, but I won't chuckle at it.
But that doesn't help Clemente. Whether you place all value on a player's single best season, or all value on his career totals, no matter how long it took to attain them, there is no possible way to get Clemente close to Wagner, let alone ahead of him. Well, OK, there is one possible way: one can hold that opinion, not subject that opinion to any fact checking, and publish your opinion anyway. That's what Fletcher did, and his list can't help but produce numerous chuckles.
Wagner was better than Clemente at everything. Everything. You can't say that about two players often, but when you can the one who is better is almost always really, really great or the one who is worse is terrible. Clemente surely wasn't terrible, in fact he was great. Players who were better than Clemente at everything are rare, and represent the greatest in the history of the game.
First, you said Clemente was "not fast at all".
How did he hit 166 triples?
Sure, he wasn't an accomplished basestealer. But its not possible for a player to hit
166 triples if they're "not fast at all".
Also- I can't imagine how you think Stargell was a better hitter than Clemente.
Clemente won 4 batting titles, and 3 other times he hit over .340 and didn't win the batting title.
Is it just because he didn't walk as much as Stargell or have as much power?
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
dallas- a couple of things..
First, you said Clemente was "not fast at all".
How did he hit 166 triples?
Sure, he wasn't an accomplished basestealer. But its not possible for a player to hit
166 triples if they're "not fast at all".
Also- I can't imagine how you think Stargell was a better hitter than Clemente.
Clemente won 4 batting titles, and 3 other times he hit over .340 and didn't win the batting title.
Is it just because he didn't walk as much as Stargell or have as much power?
Clemente was faster than me, for sure, but among major league baseball players he was about average. He led the league in grounding into double plays twice, stole an average of 6 bases per full season (getting caught 3 times, negating the value of his stolen bases) and his range in the outfield was almost exactly average. He wasn't that fast.
Batting average is a worthless statistic. On-base percentage and slugging percentage are what matters and Stargell topped Clemente in both. Compared to average, Clemente was 30% better than the average hitter and Stargell was 47% better. Taking a deeper dive, looking at play-by-play data, Stargell was responsible for winning 52.6 games more than an average player over his career, Clemente 40.3. That's all offense, and on defense Clemente was considerably better. James ranks Clemente 8 spots ahead of Stargell overall, and that's reasonable. I think, though, that James is giving credit to Clemente for being a great human being and for what he might have done had he not died. Based solely on statistics, I think Stargell was a little bit better than Clemente.
If Clemente had been at the plate those 700 times,
how many more runners would he have scored or moved over?
You need to figure little things like that into your final analysis to get a complete picture,
as strikeouts are a huge negative factor which you don't evaluate.
And when comparing eras', you still need to adjust for an improving average athletic ability ratio.
Just check the times in the Olympics 100 meter dash over the last 120 years.
So when comparing Honus Wagner to Roberto Clemente, lets say if you think Honus was 40% better than Roberto,
just subtract maybe 3% for every 10 years of time elapsed between each others prime.
Honus probably peaked in what, 1910, Roberto in 1965. So subtract 16.5 from that 40% and you get 23.5%.
Those numbers are just an example, but you do need to include something similar in your studies of
players who played in different eras.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Teddy Ballgame, 19 years with the Boston Red Sox, the Kid accomplished this:
17 All Star appearances
2 time American League MVP
6 time American League batting champ
2 time Triple Crown winner
finished with a .344 batting average; 521 HRs; .482 OBP highest all-time
He joined the Navy/Marines in 1943 and served 3 years - in his prime during WWII
He was a Marine combat pilot from 1952 - 1953, serving during the Korean war.
Elected to the HOF in 1966 in his first year of eligibility.
He became (in reality created) the Jimmy Fund in Boston, which has raised untold millions for cancer care & research, primarily for children.
As I kid in the mid-50s, I saw he and Mickey Mantle play in Fenway Park. I'd press my little transistor radio to my ear during the summer to hear Curt Gowdy call his at bats and fielding plays. "Hey neighbor, have a Gansett", a local Boston beer was the radio ad...how sweet those days were!
I knew he and Mantle were special then, but now the memories are even more precious. What could Ted have accomplished had he not served when he answered the call?
Stargell struck out 700 more times than Clemente.
If Clemente had been at the plate those 700 times,
how many more runners would he have scored or moved over?
You need to figure little things like that into your final analysis to get a complete picture,
as strikeouts are a huge negative factor which you don't evaluate.
And when comparing eras', you still need to adjust for an improving average athletic ability ratio.
Just check the times in the Olympics 100 meter dash over the last 120 years.
So when comparing Honus Wagner to Roberto Clemente, lets say if you think Honus was 40% better than Roberto,
just subtract maybe 3% for every 10 years of time elapsed between each others prime.
Honus probably peaked in what, 1910, Roberto in 1965. So subtract 16.5 from that 40% and you get 23.5%.
Those numbers are just an example, but you do need to include something similar in your studies of
players who played in different eras.
Sorry, but your point about strikeouts isn't valid. You can't pick Stargell's 700 worst ABs and fill those in with what Clemente would have done in 700 average ABs. In 700 random at bats, Stargell would hit more HRs than Clemente, walk more than Clemente, and ground into fewer DPs than Clemente. Clemente would hit more singles and triples. The value of Stargell's extra HRs, walks and fewer DPs exceeds the value of Clemente's extra singles and triples. It exceeds in theory, based on the expected value of each event, and it exceeds in practice, looking at what actually happened in the play-by-play data.
Your point about era adjustments is certainly valid, and on the chance you didn't know, James includes that in his analysis - it keeps Wagner from being even further ahead of Clemente, and prevents Clemente from falling out of the top 100 entirely and being replaced by Cap Anson and so forth. But 3% for every 10 years is WAY too large an adjustment. If you used it going forward from Clemente, I think you would be surprised how far down the list Clemente would fall, as we assumed that every player playing today got a 15% boost relative to Clemente.
A few more facts that bear on this:
Clemente and Stargell played in roughly the same era, but since Clemente started earlier than Stargell, he played in years in which it was slightly easier to produce runs than Stargell did, since Stargell's career more or less overlaps the second dead-ball era. It's not a huge difference, but a run Stargell created was worth about 3% more than a run created by Clemente.
Overall, as previously noted, Stargell's OPS+ (mix of OBP and SA) was 147, Clemente's was 130. But Stargell's OPS improved with RISP and with men on more than Clemente's did. Again, another approximate 3% boost for Stargell since RISP and men-on hitting has more value (produces more runs) than other situations.
Clemente has a much higher batting average than Stargell; he also has a higher batting average than Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, so we know we need to look deeper than that. But your argument for Clemente seems to begin and end with his batting average, and it's a stat that doesn't really tell us very much. As you look beyond batting average, and pretty much no matter where you look beyond that, Stargell wins. Strictly as hitters, Stargell was better than Clemente. When you add fielding to the mix, my mind is open. Clemente was clearly a better fielder than Stargell and at worst makes up a lot of the ground he lost on hitting, and at best passes Stargell. James says he passes him, I'm not sure about that. But one thing I think anyone who looks deep enough into the stats will agree on is that they were both great, and that neither one was that much better than the other.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dallas, your in depth analysis is always very compelling.
Impressive
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I've had three favorite players ever since I was a kid... Clemente, Stargell, and Brett so I really don't care
if I lose this discussion anyway.lol.
But I still say Clemente was a better hitter than Stargell based on a lifetime batting avg. 35 points higher.
Yes, Stargell was better at drawing walks, but as far as talent at actually swinging the bat, batting average IS what matters.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Stargell was a better hitter then Clemente. One of the most feared during his era. Clemente was the best player. All in my opinion of course
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......