-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
When I think "dominant" I think Albert Pujols. Barry Bonds. Dawson's highest OPS+ (157 in 1981, 395 at bats), is just two points higher than Pujols' career low of 155. His career OPS+ was 119.
Compared to some dominant players:
Pujols 171
Bonds 182
Manny Ramirez 157
Alex Rodriguez 145
Ken Griffey Jr 141
Mark McGwire 163
Now, post someone from Dawson's ERA for comparison. McGwire and Bonds are the only guys who played any significant time in it and we all know how they extended/improved their careers. You're now comparing players out of their ERA's really.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
That doesn't mean that an out wasn't bad...
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
Now, post someone from Dawson's ERA for comparison. McGwire and Bonds are the only guys who played any significant time in it and we all know how they extended/improved their careers. You're now comparing players out of their ERA's really.
Do you even know what OPS+ is? It adjusts for the league the player is in, and thus is a useful tool for comparing players from different eras.
For example, many people probably think that McGwire's .278/.424/.697 year with 65 HR and 147 RBI is better than Carl Yastrzemski's .329/.452/.592 year with 40 HR and 102 RBI. Using OPS+, they both come out at 178, meaning they had nearly identical seasons when compared to the rest of the league.
It's also park-adjusted./
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Outs aren't as important as runs. Sometimes, a batter volunteers an out just to score a run or move up a runner. Are you unaware of sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flies, suicide squeezes, safety squeezes, hitting "behind" the runner, etc? Obviously none of these tactics would be employed and so universally accepted if everyone thought like you did. For that matter, why should pitchers ever give intentional walks by your logic?
That's what all your statistical mumbo-jumbo lacks - the acknowledgement that this is a team game and team players sometimes take an out to get a run. It happens **** near every day for seven months out of the year. I don't know how you could have missed it unless you just don't watch baseball.
BTW, the very stat-based game we are all playing around here gives the managers the options to do all those things that fly in the face of your Holy Grail. Did the programmers f*** up by putting that in?
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TexanBob
Outs aren't as important as runs. Sometimes, a batter volunteers an out just to score a run or move up a runner. Are you unaware of sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flies, suicide squeezes, safety squeezes, hitting "behind" the runner, etc? Obviously none of these tactics would be employed and so universally accepted if everyone thought like you did.
I am aware. However, I am also aware that in the majority of situations, those "tactics" often DECREASE a team's run expectancy - that is, the amount of runs the average team should be expected to score given the situation (runners on base, inning, etc.). Seriously, read up on it, before just automatically assuming that those tactics are always benificial just because it's "conventional wisdom." Baseball Between the Numbers has a chapter or two on such events.
Quote:
For that matter, why should pitchers ever give intentional walks by your logic?
Most of the time, it DOES hurt the team to give an intentional walk to a batter. Obviously, in an extreme case, if Albert Pujols is up with Royce Clayton behind him, walking Pujols is likely the best choice. However, in a lot of the situations that intentional walks are issued, it increases the run expectancy of the opposing team.
Quote:
That's what all your statistical mumbo-jumbo lacks - the acknowledgement that this is a team game and team players sometimes take an out to get a run.
And what you're "non statistical mumbo jumbo" lacks is the facts that prove that those strategies often hurt the team more than help. Bottom 9th, tie game, runner on second, no outs, sacrificng the runner to third base is benificial because it increases the run expectancy. Top of the 6th, no outs, runner on first, sacrifice bunt is NOT benificial. Of course, if the pitcher is batting or something, it's a different situation.
Quote:
It happens **** near every day for seven months out of the year. I don't know how you could have missed it unless you just don't watch baseball.
I don't know why you seem to think that I don't think the tactics exist just because I believe the facts that they decrease run expectancy.
Quote:
BTW, the very stat-based game we are all playing around here gives the managers the options to do all those things that fly in the face of your Holy Grail. Did the programmers f*** up by putting that in?
Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth and stop pulling things out of nowhere. These tactics exist in baseball. Please show me where I denied their existance. These tactics, however, more often than not HURT the team, rather than help. Why should a part of the game of baseball be left out of a game about baseball? Nobody ever said that. I've simply stated that such tactics are only sometimes benificial.
Honestly, read up on the stuff before just flat out denying it and disagreeing with it and ignoring it like it isn't fact. I urge you all to read Baseball Between the Numbers, or similar works, and then debate, rather than just throwing names around and insulting statistical analysis to try and prove your point.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
The best managers in baseball look at the stats, acknowledge them, put them on the bench, and then go out and manage the game.
If what you're saying is true, then why haven't we arrived at a baseball season where everyone has an 81-81 record, or even close to it yet?
BTW Houston, ever heard of Slapshot?
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
I'd take Yaz over Big Mac any day.;)
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
You just don't get it. Baseball is more than numbers. Reading your statistical books will only prove statistical points as if numbers are the only entity on which the game of baseball exists. Nine accountants line up again nine other accountants and throw formulas at each other. That seems to be your idea of the sport.
Baseball is a really great game with a lot of interesting strategy and tricky bounces that don't fit nice and neatly on a spreadsheet. Getting the highest OPS+ is not the objective of the sport. The objective is to win games and then win more games than the other teams in the league. Certainly some statistics factor into it but the statistics are not the game. They are an adjunct to the game.
The game is played with balls, bats and gloves, not calculators.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
...and how would you calculate home field advantages such as a mound being "a little" off from the visitors 'pen mound height, or softening up the area around first to slow up Henderson and Raines, or "speeding up" the infield to take advantage of a sharp infield? You can't.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Not that your stats are all BS, but they are only half of the story.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
The best managers in baseball look at the stats, acknowledge them, put them on the bench, and then go out and manage the game.
I think Earl Weaver might just disagree with you there. Nevermind John Henry, Theo Epstein, Grady Little, and Bill James.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
in 37 years that group has a combined 2 world series victories between them. That's 2 of the World Series wins since 1969.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Do you even know what OPS+ is? It adjusts for the league the player is in, and thus is a useful tool for comparing players from different eras.
So in other words you CAN'T post someone from Dawson's era as a comparison.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
in 37 years that group has a combined 2 world series victories between them. That's 2 of the World Series wins since 1969.
Earl Weaver has 1400+ wins, and a .580 career winning percentage as a manager. Is that bad?
The group running Boston hasn't been around since 1969...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
So in other words you CAN'T post someone from Dawson's era as a comparison.
You said one guy yourself. Mark McGwire.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
To say Mcgwire and Dawson are from the same era's is like saying Clemens and Steve Carlton are from the same Era's. It is a bit of a stretch...
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Earl Weaver has 1400+ wins, and a .580 career winning percentage as a manager. Is that bad?
The group running Boston hasn't been around since 1969
No, but the winning percentage of those two groups is miserable.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TacoBoy
To say Mcgwire and Dawson are from the same era's is like saying Clemens and Steve Carlton are from the same Era's. It is a bit of a stretch...
Couldn't have said it better, Dawson was in the end of one era, McGwire was in the beginning of another.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Earl Weaver has 1400+ wins, and a .580 career winning percentage as a manager. Is that bad?
The group running Boston hasn't been around since 1969...
You said one guy yourself. Mark McGwire.
Wait... Dawson compares to McGwire... based on their 80's numbers?!?!?!?
One guy who Dawson was a contemporary of who had similar numbers in the 80's was Barry Bonds. Pretty darn good company.
That's what people fail to realize (particularly ones who are new fans) is that many of the "dominant" players of the expansion/Juiced ball/pathetic pitching era were hardly dominant (atleast not to the extant they were in later years).
Those offensive numbers that people are ga-ga about from guy's like Rodriguez and Griffey and Pujols aren't really impressive when you consider the sheer number of guy's consistently putting up those numbers in the current era. When Dawson was in his prime, you didn't have nearly the same number of players who consistently got 100 walks (or lord... 150 walks which was UNHEARD of until the late 90's!), and where 35-40 HR gave you an excellent chance of leading the league.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
What's Billy Beane won lately?
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
.285, 28 HR, 90 RBI, was an excellent season in Dawsons age.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Well yea.. OK.
Here's his list of most comperable hitters, from Baseball-reference.com:
- [1] Billy Williams (892) *
[2] Tony Perez (886) *
[3] Dave Parker (865)
[4] Al Kaline (859) *
[5] Harold Baines (851)
[6] Dwight Evans (834)
[7] Ernie Banks (829) *
[8] Dave Winfield (827) *
[9] Vada Pinson (810)
[10] Fred McGriff (797)
From what I remember, Fred McGriff would probably be most comparable. It turns out that McGriff had slightly more power and control, though (.279/.323/.482 vs. .284/.377/.509).
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Well yea.. OK.
Here's his list of most comperable hitters, from Baseball-reference.com:
- [1] Billy Williams (892) *
[2] Tony Perez (886) *
[3] Dave Parker (865)
[4] Al Kaline (859) *
[5] Harold Baines (851)
[6] Dwight Evans (834)
[7] Ernie Banks (829) *
[8] Dave Winfield (827) *
[9] Vada Pinson (810)
[10] Fred McGriff (797)
From what
I remember, Fred McGriff would probably be most comparable. It turns out that McGriff had slightly more power and control, though (.279/.323/.482 vs. .284/.377/.509).
Not if you consider position and. defense speed,e tc... Dave Winfeild would be a good comparable.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
.285, 28 HR, 90 RBI, was an excellent season in Dawsons age.
Yep. That was what you hoped your all star no-defense first-baseman put up. Nevermind your gold glove, base-stealing Right Felder...
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
No, but the winning percentage of those two groups is miserable.
A .583 winning percentage is miserable? Weaver's Orioles were always playoff contenders as well. The lowest his team finished was 4th, which only occurred twice (1978 & 1981). You're seriously arguing the Weaver was a bad manager?
Boston isn't doing to shabby recently, either. Grady little was 188-136 (.580 win percentage) and finished second in both seasons that he managed the Red Sox. Francona has a 279-207 (.574 win percentage) record, with 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes. That's not bad at all, especially in a division like the AL East.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
Not if you consider position and. defense speed,e tc... Dave Winfeild would be a good comparable.
True. I missed (or rather, overlooked) Winfield's name on there somehow. I know what's coming next though, but the thing is Winfield didn't get in to the hall because of his bat. He had 12 All Star appearances, 7 Gold Gloves, 6 Silver Sluggers, the Babe Ruth award, Roberto Clemente award, and the Brtanch Ricky award. The writer's/broadcaster's loved the guy (I remember him distinctly being made into a media darling). He's a marginal HOF'er at best (I personally wouldn't place him with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, and company) but... since he is in, why not Dawson?
*shrug*
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Oh come on now... Dave Winfield is a marginal HOF player now?
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Take a look at him: Dave Winfield
Outside of the glam and glitz of the MLB spotlight, his performances weren't as spectacular as they were always made out to be. I remember vividly, watching Winfield. At the time, it was easy enough to fall for the broadcaster's lines about how great he was, and he was a good player. I wouldn't compare him to most other Hall Of Fame hitter's though. Micky Mantle's stats can stand up to any scrutiny, I'm not so sure that Winfield's stats can. I don't begrudge him being in the hall really, but there are points against him as well (once you get beyond emotional ties).
I just did a query on the Lahman database as well. There were plenty of players that played alongside Dawson who had better (some much better) hitting. From 1978-1984, The top 10 (minimum 150 AB) sorted by slugging are:
Code:
nameFirst nameLast yearID Avg OBP SLG
George Brett 1980 0.39 0.45 0.66
Mike Schmidt 1981 0.32 0.44 0.64
Fred Lynn 1979 0.33 0.42 0.64
Mike Schmidt 1980 0.29 0.38 0.62
Champ Summers 1979 0.31 0.41 0.61
Dave Kingman 1979 0.29 0.34 0.61
John Lowenstein 1982 0.32 0.41 0.60
Reggie Jackson 1980 0.30 0.40 0.60
Jim Rice 1979 0.32 0.38 0.60
Jim Spencer 1979 0.29 0.37 0.59
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
FYI: Dawson's 1981 season is #20 on that list. 1983 is #34. Winfield is right up there with him (1982 = #18 & 1979 = 19). George Brett appears 5 times (every season between 1979-1983), Dawson 4 (80-83), Winfield 3 (79, 82-83), Schmidt 3 times (80-82).
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
The only guy's on that list who consistently put up better numbers are HOF already... what's your point? I mean so now Dave Kingman (the very definition of a 1-dimensional player) was a better player than Dawson?
By that criteria Cal Ripken doesn't deserve to be in the hall either...
You're seriously reaching there bud... That you use 150AB as the minimum is friggin' laughable.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
A more fair analysis would be 1977-1992, players with atleast 325 AB (with 215 being the cutoff for 1981 shortened season).
I mean HONESTLY... whouses 150 AB as a cutoff? Talk about selective!
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Like I said, since Winfield is in...
Regarding Kingman, you said it yourself: At the time,
Quote:
Yep. That was what you hoped your all star no-defense first-baseman put up. Nevermind your gold glove, base-stealing Right Felder...
This is how Bill James and company were able to break into the league and start working for the teams in the first place. There was wide acceptance that out's weren't necessarily anything to worry about. Advance the runners at any cost was the name of the game. As we see now, being willing to accept a walk instead of just swinging to desperately make contact is ultimately more productive. There's certainly still a place for sac hits, squeeze plays, stolen bases, and whatnot. Manager's have to know how to use those tactics correctly, is all.
Anyway, I'm not saying that Kingman was necessarily better. All the players on the list above had better seasons than Dawson did, at the time that Dawson was playing though. It's an argument against his being so "dominant" during that era. Define dominance, because to me a dominant player ought to be on the top of that list multiple times, like George Brett is. Their single season records, but there only from the seasons 1979-1983 (5 seasons), when Dawson's hitting was at it's peak.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
A more fair analysis would be 1977-1992, players with atleast 325 AB (with 215 being the cutoff for 1981 shortened season).
I mean HONESTLY... who uses 150 AB as a cutoff? Talk about selective!
Easy enough. The numbers that I picked were off the cuff, made in about 20 seconds. One minute.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
That result set includes 2,863 players.
Top 50, in order of slugging percentage:
Code:
nameFirst nameLast yearID Avg OBP SLG
George Brett 1980 0.39 0.45 0.66
Mike Schmidt 1981 0.32 0.44 0.64
Fred Lynn 1979 0.33 0.42 0.64
Kevin Mitchell 1989 0.29 0.39 0.64
George Foster 1977 0.32 0.38 0.63
Mike Schmidt 1980 0.29 0.38 0.62
Mark McGwire 1987 0.29 0.37 0.62
Kal Daniels 1987 0.33 0.43 0.62
Dave Kingman 1979 0.29 0.34 0.61
George Bell 1987 0.31 0.35 0.60
Jim Rice 1978 0.31 0.37 0.60
Reggie Jackson 1980 0.30 0.40 0.60
Jack Clark 1987 0.29 0.46 0.60
Jim Rice 1979 0.32 0.38 0.60
Greg Luzinski 1977 0.31 0.39 0.59
Jim Rice 1977 0.32 0.38 0.59
Danny Tartabull 1991 0.32 0.40 0.59
Eric Davis 1987 0.29 0.40 0.59
Cecil Fielder 1990 0.28 0.38 0.59
Oscar Gamble 1977 0.30 0.39 0.59
Wade Boggs 1987 0.36 0.46 0.59
George Brett 1985 0.33 0.44 0.59
Dave Parker 1978 0.33 0.39 0.59
Darryl Strawberry 1987 0.28 0.40 0.58
Mike Easler 1980 0.34 0.40 0.58
Will Clark 1987 0.31 0.37 0.58
Dale Murphy 1987 0.30 0.42 0.58
Robin Yount 1982 0.33 0.38 0.58
Pedro Guerrero 1985 0.32 0.42 0.58
Rickey Henderson 1990 0.33 0.44 0.58
Reggie Smith 1977 0.31 0.43 0.58
Mike Schmidt 1977 0.27 0.39 0.57
Don Mattingly 1986 0.35 0.39 0.57
Sixto Lezcano 1979 0.32 0.41 0.57
Mike Greenwell 1987 0.33 0.39 0.57
Rod Carew 1977 0.39 0.45 0.57
Dwight Evans 1987 0.30 0.42 0.57
Jose Canseco 1988 0.31 0.39 0.57
Andre Dawson 1987 0.29 0.33 0.57
Don Mattingly 1985 0.32 0.37 0.57
Willie Stargell 1978 0.29 0.38 0.57
Cal Ripken 1991 0.32 0.37 0.57
Paul Molitor 1987 0.35 0.44 0.57
Barry Bonds 1990 0.30 0.41 0.56
Mike Schmidt 1979 0.25 0.39 0.56
Larry Sheets 1987 0.32 0.36 0.56
George Brett 1979 0.33 0.38 0.56
George Brett 1983 0.31 0.38 0.56
Ben Oglivie 1980 0.30 0.36 0.56
George Foster 1979 0.30 0.39 0.56
Dawson's only on that list once. That kind of makes you're position worse, doesn't it?
I used 79-83 because those are Dawson's biggest hitting seasons. That seemed fair to me. This includes alot of seasons in the very late 80's and early 90's, so I'm not sure that it's actually as fair of a list, to Dawson.
Edit: ******, Word truncated the averages...
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Like I said, since Winfield is in...
Regarding Kingman, you said it yourself: At the time,
This is how Bill James and company were able to break into the league and start working for the teams in the first place. There was wide acceptance that out's weren't necessarily anything to worry about. Advance the runners at any cost was the name of the game. As we see now, being willing to accept a walk instead of just swinging to desperately make contact is ultimately more productive. There's certainly still a place for sac hits, squeeze plays, stolen bases, and whatnot. Manager's have to know how to use those tactics correctly, is all.
Anyway, I'm not saying that Kingman was necessarily better. All the players on the list above had better seasons than Dawson did, at the time that Dawson was playing though. It's an argument against his being so "dominant" during that era. Define dominance, because to me a dominant player ought to be on the top of that list multiple times, like George Brett is. Their single season records, but there only from the seasons 1979-1983 (5 seasons), when Dawson's hitting was at it's peak.
But they DIDN'T... you deliberatly set the bar SO low for AB, that part time players like John Friggin' Lowenstein made the list... And why 1979-1984? Arbitrary to say the least!
I mean there is a reason why a guy who goes 55/150 doesn't win the batting championship. Your criteria are so off that they're not useful in anywya of determining worth, not to mention that you ignore speed and defense entirely.
For fun
Dave Kingman compares to
Similar Batters
Greg Vaughn (869)
Frank Howard (863)
Rocky Colavito (848)
Boog Powell (847)
Roy Sievers (844)
Joe Adcock (834)
Norm Cash (833)
George Foster (827)
Willie Horton (824)
Jose Canseco (821)
I don't see any HOF on THAt list!
Again someone who didn't see Dawson or Winfield play, might make these arguments. Let me put it this way. If Dave Winfield is a marginal HOF player, then so is George Brett and Cal Ripken. Dawson would probably finish 4th in that foursome, but the differance between 1st and 4th isn't as much as you'd like to think... Those four players stack up line up very well with each other.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Dawson's only on that list once. That kind of makes you're position worse, doesn't it?
I used 79-83 because those are Dawson's biggest hitting seasons. That seemed fair to me. This includes alot of seasons in the very late 80's and early 90's, so I'm not sure that it's actually as fair of a list, to Dawson.
Edit: ******, Word truncated the averages...
I can live with my position being better or worse, as long as the criteria are logical.
Again doing a straight top 50 makes little sense. Some years are big hitting years, some aren't. A top 10, per season for the stretch of 15 years. would make more sense. As you can see from that list '77, '79, '87 are all over represented because they were big hitting years.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Well, I fixed the # of At Bats. I think the seasons were a better comparison though, so here's top 20, 78-84, 325 AB minimum:
Code:
nameFirst nameLast yearID Avg OBP SLG
George Brett 1980 0.39 0.45 0.66
Mike Schmidt 1981 0.32 0.44 0.64
Fred Lynn 1979 0.33 0.42 0.64
Mike Schmidt 1980 0.29 0.38 0.62
Dave Kingman 1979 0.29 0.34 0.61
Reggie Jackson 1980 0.30 0.40 0.60
Jim Rice 1979 0.32 0.38 0.60
Mike Easler 1980 0.34 0.40 0.58
Robin Yount 1982 0.33 0.38 0.58
Sixto Lezcano 1979 0.32 0.41 0.57
Mike Schmidt 1979 0.25 0.39 0.56
George Brett 1979 0.33 0.38 0.56
Ben Oglivie 1980 0.30 0.36 0.56
George Brett 1983 0.31 0.38 0.56
George Foster 1979 0.30 0.39 0.56
Dave Winfield 1982 0.28 0.33 0.56
Dave Winfield 1979 0.31 0.40 0.56
Andre Dawson 1981 0.30 0.37 0.55
Bob Horner 1979 0.31 0.35 0.55
Willie Stargell 1979 0.28 0.35 0.55
I can't figure out why it's rounding the averages now though. Their not rounded on Access, but as soon as their copied to the clipboard they get rounded.
:(
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
I can live with my position being better or worse, as long as the criteria are logical.
Again doing a straight top 50 makes little sense. Some years are big hitting years, some aren't. A top 10, per season for the stretch of 15 years. would make more sense. As you can see from that list '77, '79, '87 are all over represented because they were big hitting years.
Now you're talking OPS+.
Dawson Shows up three times on the OPS+ leaderboards:
1980 NL-OPS+ 136-(#6)
1981 NL-OPS+ 157-(#2)
1983 NL-OPS+ 141-(#5)
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I can't figure out why it's rounding the averages now though. Their not rounded on Access, but as soon as their copied to the clipboard they get rounded.
:(
Try pasting into note pad first.
-
Re: Famers on the Fringe: Andre Dawson
I did, same thing. It's weird because it worked right the first time. I'm gonna try closing Access and reopening it, see if that makes a difference.
